Epistemology Statement
Epistemology Statement
Epistemology Statement
Epistemology Statement
Ontology and epistemology are two philosophical concepts that drive research and its
process. A clear understanding of these terms is necessary for the researcher to start their
research correctly and build upon a solid foundation. Ontology in the Oxford reference is “[t]he
study of being. In social science research this refers to studying the nature of the things studied”
(Angus, 2010). Crotty (1998) also refers to ontology as “the study of being. It is concerned with
`what is', with the nature of existence, with the structure of reality as such” (p.10). By definition,
ontology deals with issues of reality and the existence of things. For example, a researcher’s
beliefs, assumptions, and point of view on what is real or what is true reflects his or her
ontological position throughout the research process. Therefore, the researcher’s choice of the
research topic, question, and investigation techniques are influenced by his or her supposition of
reality (Wright, O'Brien, Nimmon, Law, & Mylopoulos, 2016). In the light of the preceding, I
would describe ontology as a way of belief which impacts one’s assumptions about reality and
Epistemology is the concept that discusses how we know reality or how we know what
the process of the research which impacts the researcher’s choice of methodology and methods.
In Crotty’s (1998) words, epistemology is “the theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical
perspective and thereby in the methodology.” (P. 3). For example, objectivism is an
epistemological approach that scrutinizes things based on their first existence without any human
interference that might add any meaning to these things. Furthermore, objectivism considers that
EPISTEMOLOGY STATEMENT 2
objects carry their sense internally which means that the “truth and meaning” are inside or within
The ontological beliefs about reality are divided among Realism, Idealism, Radical
Ontology, New Materialist Ontology and more (Berbary & Boles, 2014). Realism treats the truth
as one constant reality that can be revealed objectively with no human interaction. Furthermore,
as in the positivist paradigm, reality is independent of the human mind and exists outside and
apart from us, without our interference which privileges humans to consider themselves to be the
center of the world (Berbary, 2017). This inert reality, therefore, can be measured through
quantitative research methods (Crano, Brewer, & Lac, 2014). On the other hand, in the New
Materialist Ontology, humans are decentered from the world where matter becomes active and
joins humans to be in the center of the world (Berbary, 2017). In that, humans and matters
become the source of knowledge and together they shape the meaning of the world.
Ontology and epistemology jointly direct the researcher to choose their approach, based
on how they view the world, to study a phenomenon. Crotty (1998) argues that ontological and
epistemological matters appear together. In other words he does not separate them from each
other.
Objectivism
Objectivism is “The view that the claims of ethics are objectively true; they are not
‘relative’ to a subject or a culture, nor purely subjective in their nature, in opposition to error
theories, skepticism, and relativism” (Angus, 2010). In Crotty’s (1998) words: “The
epistemological view that things exist as meaningful entities independently of consciousness and
experience” (P. 5). The philosophical perspective of objectivism is to identify the truth separate
EPISTEMOLOGY STATEMENT 3
from human interpretations, feelings, and experiences. The truth is somewhere out there in the
object which needs to be recognized scientifically through logical human senses with no
illustrations. Moreover, the claims that are made about the truth in the objectivist approach
cannot be represented and reproduced from one to another. Also, the truth here is an abstraction
of the lived experience and this truth does not necessary representing realism but detached from
the actual reality (Berbary, 2017). Besides, the self in this paradigm, as in constructionism, is
present as an “Agentic Actor” - the ability of the individual to think, act, and perform on his or
her own based on a stable constant identity (Berbary, 2017) which reflects the centralization of
since we are separate from our research. The following discussion will address the research
Positivism:
The Oxford Reference defines positivism as “The view that there is a single measurable
reality and that questions of cause and effect can only be investigated empirically” (Angus,
2010). Positivism was initially formed by the French philosopher, Auguste Comte (1798-1857),
then positivism was applied by the sociologist, Emile Durkheim, as a positivist approach to study
In positivism, the subject has no influence on the object, which implies that the meaning
can be found or discovered without any interference of the subject to create or influence that
meaning (Crotty, 1998). Also, the positivist approach views science as the only way to obtain the
truth (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Through the scientific method, the scientist reveals the truth through
EPISTEMOLOGY STATEMENT 4
experimentation and observation of the world around them. Thus, the truth can be discovered
the researcher’s view of the world and links that to his or her theoretical perspective. In the
positivist approach, the researcher employs the deductive tactic: a method that goes from general
to specific to choose a theory or a hypothesis to be used prior to the data collection stage
(Bhattacherjee, 2012; Crano et al., 2014; Gray, 2013). Oppositely, the inductive tactic utilizes the
data collected through observations or other methods to structure a theory to be used for the
purpose of the research (Creswell, 2003; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Positivism, for instance, relies
Post-positivism
Post-positivism does not refuse positivism. Both approaches are based on scientific
methods and rely on objective truth (Bhattacherjee, 2012). However, post-positivism is different
from positivism by drawing a line of thought that influences the construction of scientific
knowledge (Crotty, 1998). In other words, the scientific method is still applied to both
addition, post-positivists use multiple approaches or methods to reveal the truth as they criticize
the positivist reality for the use of single research methods (Creswell, 2003). This critique of
reality is different from the critical theory by the Frankfort school(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Indeed, the post-positive approach, similar to the anti-positive and natural approaches, informs
Constructionism
Constructionism is “the view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as
such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between
human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social
objective reality does not exist (Grbich, 2007). In that, there is more than one version of the real
truth that is constructed throughout interactional processes between the subject and object. The
creating the meaning – deliberately the individual reaches out to something to interact with and
knowledge. To illustrate, the individual will carry in his or her consciousness or unconsciousness
a set of beliefs, values, perceptions while interacting with an object to create a meaning (Moita-
Lopes, 2012). In this case, false insights might occur in the individual’s (researcher’s) mind
which will reflect on the nature of the reality. In constructionism, there are two major
subsidiaries shaping this approach: Constructivism and Social Constructionism. In the following,
a further discussion on how meaning is created, the nature of truth in the constructivist and the
Constructivism
with the object to create the meaning. In constructivism, the mind is the major player that limits
or permits the construction of the meaning. The multi-version of truth that is constructed in the
researcher’s consciousness allows for “multifaceted perspectives” which help the researcher to
have a view of the world from different angles (Berbary & Boles, 2014). Moreover, in the
EPISTEMOLOGY STATEMENT 6
constructivism approach, meaning is constructed in the researcher’s brain with interaction with
the object which allows for varied interpretations for the same phenomenon (Crotty, 1998).
As in the objectivist approach, the self is a steady actor with a stable identity. However,
method used by some researchers to mitigate the potential deleterious effects of unacknowledged
preconceptions related to the research and thereby to increase the rigor of the project” (Tufford
& Newman, 2012, p. 81). Phenomenology is mainly the theory that uses bracketing to control
Social constructionism
greater or less degree, underpins all of these newer approaches, which are currently offering
radical and critical alternatives in psychology and social psychology, as well as in other
disciplines in the social science and humanities”. Social constructionism means that the
and emancipate the subject within that culture. The culture sounding the interaction would be
focus and how this culture will impact the experience by limiting or librating that experience
advance. An example of this would be a subjectivity statement that the researcher includes into
their research to give the reader a hint of the researcher’s background, identity, culture, and so on
(Berbary 2017). In this short paper I have introduced the meaning of ontology and epistemology
presented in section A. I followed that with section B that explores the ontological and
References
Berbary, L. A., & Boles, J. C. (2014). Eight Points for Reflection: Revisiting Scaffolding for
Improvisational Humanist Qualitative Inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 36(5), 401-419.
doi:10.1080/01490400.2014.912169
Crano, W. D., Brewer, M. B., & Lac, A. (2014). Principles and Methods of Social Research:
Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Discipline and practice of qualitative research The
Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32): Sage.
Grbich, C. (2007). Epistemological changes and their impact on the field. In C. Grbich (Ed.),
Qualitative data analysis: an introduction (pp. 3-15). London: SAGE.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. Handbook
of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Social Work,
11(1), 80-96. doi:doi:10.1177/1473325010368316
Wright, S., O'Brien, B. C., Nimmon, L., Law, M., & Mylopoulos, M. (2016). Research Design
Considerations. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 8(1), 97-98. doi:10.4300/jgme-
d-15-00566.1