Running Head: EPISTEMOLOGY STATEMENT 1

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

how facts are discovered.

Epistemology is the concept that discusses how we know reality or how we know what

we know (Creswell, 2003). The researcher’s epistemological contemplation is usually linked to

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 object (Crotty, 1998).

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

the individual as a source of information. Furthermore, bias in objectivism should be avoided

since we are separate from our research. The following discussion will address the research

approaches used to reveal the objective truth: positivism and post-positivism.

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

the social order (Bhattacherjee, 2012).

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

only through methods of measuring.

As mentioned in this paper, positivism is an epistemological point of view which reflects

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

on physical, mindful, and obvious truths and rejects the differing.

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

paradigms; however, post-positivists criticize positivists because of their absolute objectivity. In

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

us that there is no perfect and complete truth, but truth is proximate.

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

context” (Crotty, 1998, p. 42). In the constructionist approach, truth or knowledge as an

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

meaning in the constructionist approach is constructed. Likewise, intentionality contributes in

creating the meaning – deliberately the individual reaches out to something to interact with and

create meaning. In this methodology, Ideology is a present as foundation contributes to our

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

social constructionist approaches will be presented.

Constructivism

Constructivism is characterized by the individual consciousness through its interaction

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,

in constructivism, the self “preconceptions” should be controlled through bracketing - “ a

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

subjectivity during the research process.

Social constructionism

Burr (2015) defines social constructionism as “[a] theoretical orientation which, to a

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

researcher goes beyond an understanding of a phenomenon in a certain culture to be more critical

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

(Berbary, 2017). Social Constructionism seals with bias or subjectivity by managing it in

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

epistemological perspectives in the research paradigms: objectivism and constructionism.

References

Angus, S. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English: 'Oxford University Press'.

Berbary, L. A. (2017). Ontology and Epistemology- Objectivism,

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

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices.

Crano, W. D., Brewer, M. B., & Lac, A. (2014). Principles and Methods of Social Research:
Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

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.

Gray, D. E. (2013). Doing Research in the Real World: 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.

Moita-Lopes, L. P. (2012). Ideology in Research Methodology The Encyclopedia of Applied

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