Critically evaluate the three epistemological perspectives and two Ontological

considerations in the inquiry method for social scientific research

A research paradigm is defined as a “set of common beliefs and agreements” shared by

researchers regarding “how problems should be understood and addressed” (Kuhn, 1962).

Therefore, this is a specific way of perceiving the world that shape how we seek answers to

research questions. As Guba (1990) argued, a research paradigm is mainly characterized by it

is ontological, epistemological and methodological dispositions. This paper therefore seeks to

critically evaluate the three epistemological perspectives of positivism, interpretivism and

pragmatism. In addition, it will critically evaluate the two ontological considerations of

subjectivity and objectivity. Finally, this paper will illustrate how the epistemological

perspectives and ontological considerations are used on research particularly in the areas of

determining what scientific method/research design can be used, how data can be collected and

analyzed and the type of findings to be unearthed

1a. According to Collis and Hussey (2003), “Epistemology is concerned with the study of

knowledge and what we accept as being valid knowledge.” As such, Epistemology in a

philosophical context is the study of knowledge in general. Bryman (2008) further explains

that “an epistemology issue concerns the question of what is (or should be) regarded as

acceptable knowledge in a discipline.” It therefore asks the questions: what is knowledge? How

does a person get to know something? And what is the basis for true knowledge? Knowledge

in itself is a justified, true belief. Therefore, the person must be able to justify the claim by

utilizing evidence of good quality, logical and reasonable.

The three epistemological perspectives include positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism.

POSITIVISM

Positivism purports that the world is external (Carson, 1988) and that there is a definite

objective reality to any research phenomenon irrespective of the researcher’s viewpoint or

belief (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Thus, they take a controlled and structural slant in
conducting research by identifying a research topic, creating suitable hypotheses and by

utilizing an appropriate research methodology (Churchill, 1996; Carson, 2001).

Positivist researchers remain separated from the participants of the research by producing a

detachment, which is imperative in remaining emotionally impartial to construct clear

distinctions between reason and feeling (Carson, 2001). They also sustain a clear distinction

between science and personal experience and fact and value judgement.

Positivist researchers pursue objectivity and utilize steadily rational and logical methods to

research. Statistical and mathematical methods are fundamental to positivist research, which

follows structured research procedures to unearth single and objective reality. The goal of

positivist researchers is to make time and context free generalizations. They use an existing

theory to generate hypotheses, which are then tested and confirmed or refuted and subsequently

leads to the further development of a theory which can be tested in the future.

INTERPRETIVISM

Interpretivism was developed as a critique of positivism but from a subjective perspective.

Interpretivists believe the reality is multiple and relative (Hudson and Ozanna, 1988).

Interpretivists argue that human beings and their social worlds cannot be studied in the same

way as physical phenomena. Therefore, social sciences research has to be different from natural

sciences research. Unlike the positivists, interpretivists do not attempt to discover universal

laws, but rather they believe that rich insights into humanity are lost if reduced to law-like

generalizations. As such, they aim to unearth new, richer understandings and meanings of

contexts.

The interpretivist researcher enters the field with prior understanding of the research context

but assumes that this is inadequate in developing a fixed research design. due to complexity of

what is perceived as reality. The researcher is open to new knowledge throughout the study

and allows it to progress with the assistance of informants.

The objective of interpretivist research is to comprehend and interpret the meanings in human

behavior oppose to generalizing and predicting subjective experiences which are time and

context bound.

PRAGMATISM

Pragmatism asserts that concepts are only relevant where they support action (Kelemen and

Rumens, 2008). It strives to reconcile both the objectivism displayed by the positivists and the

subjectivism displayed by the interpretivists. This is done by considering theories, concepts,

ideas, hypotheses and research findings not in an abstract form, but in terms of their roles they

play as instruments of thought and action. Reality matters to pragmatists as practical effects of

ideas, and knowledge I valued for enabling actions to be carried out successfully. Pragmatists

recognize that there are many different ways to interpret the world and undertaking research,

and that no single point of view can ever give the entire picture and that that multiple realities

may exist. This does not indicate that pragmatists always use multiple methods, but rather they

use the method or methods that enable credible, well founded, reliable and relevant data to be

collected that advance the research (Kelemen and Rumens, 2008).

1b. Ontology refers to assumptions about the nature of reality (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). It

shapes the way in which one sees and studies your research objects. Your ontology therefore

determines how you see the world and therefore your choice of what to research for your

research project. The two ontological perspectives include objectivism and subjectivism.

Objectivism integrates the principles of the natural sciences, debating that the social reality that

is researched is external to the social actors. From an ontological perspective, objectivism

contains realism, which in its most extreme form supposes that there is only one actual social

reality experienced by all social actors (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). From an objectivists’

perspective, social and physical phenomena exist independently. Therefore, it is more sensible

to study them in a similar way as a natural scientist would study nature. On the other hand,
from a epistemological viewpoint, objectivists seek to unearth the truth about the social world,

through the channel of observable, measurable facts, from which law-like generalizations can

be drawn about the universal reality.

Subjectivism on the other hand encompasses assumptions of the arts and humanities, stressing

that social reality is created through the perceptions and ensuing actions of social actors.

Ontologically, subjectivism contains nominalism. Nominalism ideally considers that the order

and structures of social phenomena through use of language, conceptual categories, perceptions

and consequent actions. According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), for nominalists, there is no

underlying reality to the social world outside of what people attribute to it because each

person’s experiences and perceives reality in their own way. As such, it is more sensible to talk

about multiple realities instead of a single reality that is identical to everyone (Burrell and

Morgan, 1979). A less extreme type of this is social constructionism, which purports that reality

is constructed through social interaction in which social actors produce partially shared

meanings and realities.

B. How are the epistemological perspective and ontological considerations used in

the conduct of research?

Based on the above assessment, Ontology is the nature of reality and the epistemology is the

relationship between the researcher and the reality of how this reality is captured or known

(Carson, 2001; Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Both paradigms chart the way towards the

conducting of research. For instance, both are influential in helping the researcher determine

what scientific method and subsequently research design can be used in order to support one’s

belief about knowledge and the nature of reality. Authors have argued that the range of

acceptable epistemologies provides the researchers with more methods options when

conducting research. It also enhances the researcher’s understandings of the implications of the

different epistemological assumptions and ontological perspectives as relates to the

researcher’s choice of method and potential limitations to the research findings. For instance,

in relation to the positivist’s assumption that objective facts provide the best scientific evidence
may possibly lead to the choice of a quantitative methodology and research methods which

ultimately is based on objectivism and empiricism with findings that are generalizable.

However, on the downside, it can be argued that by using this approach, it will limit the

collection of richer data that could have produced a more detailed or complex view of the

realities of the research area. This perspective could have also contributed to the understanding

of differences in individual contexts and experiences or even generated a new understanding

of the research area if the research was based on a different view of knowledge. Overall,

notwithstanding the diversity that knowledge proves in research, it is the researcher’s own

epistemological assumption that will manage what is perceived as legitimate for the research.

In addition, the two paradigms assist in the conducting of research by laying out the terms and

conditions under which data from social actors can be collected and analyzed to generate the

best product to represent their reality, truth and laws. For instance, in deciding to undertake a

subjective type ontological approach to one’s social research, the researcher is guided by the

fact that social phenomena are in a constant state of revision. As such, requiring researchers to

study situations in greater detail ranging from historical, geographical and socio-cultural

contexts in an attempt to comprehend is phenomenon in its new and revised form or how

realities are now being experienced. Unlike an objectivist researcher, who seeks to uncover

universal facts and laws governing social behavior, the subjectivist researcher will be more

concerned with different social actors. Therefore, considering this particular interest, data

collection will undertake a more subjective, firsthand and in-depth approach oppose to a

scientific, objective and fact-proving approach. At the same time however, and keeping in mind

that no research approach is more superior than the other, in utilizing the subjectivists approach,

it is important to note that some level of validity is needed and as such, the researcher is

required to will required to engage in what Cunliffe (2003) calls ‘radical reflexivity’

throughout their research.

Another noteworthy point is that both paradigms provide to the researcher an insight into the

type of data to be generated and the type of findings to be unearthed.

Reference

• Berger, P. L., and Luckman, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise
in Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Irvington Publishers.
• Black, I. (2006). The presentation of interpretivist research. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 9(4), 319–324.
• Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., and Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing
Research. London: Sage.
• Churchill, G. A. (1996). Basic Marketing Research (3rd Ed.), Fort Worth, TX: The
Dryden Press.
• Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research. London: Sage
• Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage publications.
• Kelemen, M. and Rumens, N. (2008) An Introduction to Critical Management
Research. London: Sage.
•