See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344159452

A brief recount of epistemology in social sciences research

Preprint · September 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21701.06883/1

CITATIONS READS

0 3,407

1 author:

Abu Hassan Makmun

Teuku Umar University
14 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abu Hassan Makmun on 09 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A brief recount of epistemology in social sciences research
Abu Hassan Makmun Abdul Qadir
PhD Student, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia

1. Epistemology: simple definition

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy discussing the nature of knowledge, asking such
questions as, “What is the nature of knowledge, and what can be considered as valid
knowledge?” Methodologists’ definitions of epistemology would usually surround this
question. For instance, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) see epistemology as the nature of
knowledge, while Creswell (2007) defines epistemology as “the relationship between the
investigator and the investigated”. Crotty (1998), meanwhile, considers epistemology to be
the “theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective and thus in the
methodology”.
Epistemology can be largely categorized into three main groups: objectivism,
constructionism, and subjectivism. The difference between them lies in their definition and
criteria of knowledge. For instance, the objectivist epistemology sees that reality, meaning,
or knowledge inherently resides with an observed object, and not at all a product of the
consciousness. Constructionism, on the other hand, sees that knowledge is a product of the
interaction between mind and object, while subjectivism the imposition of meaning by the
mind on the object (Crotty, 1998).
In summary, one can see epistemology as a discussion on knowledge, how it is derived or
gained, and what criteria it must fulfil to be considered as valid. Answers to the questions
below will provide a clearer illustration.

2. Positivism and post-positivism

Positivism posits that reality is singular, objective, and external of consciousness, and that
knowledge is that which can be verified and observed (Healy & Perry, 2000; Krauss, 2005).
With this epistemological stance, positivism denounces metaphysics, religious beliefs, and
norms, as knowledge. This paradigm was first implemented in the natural sciences, but its
application was promoted in the social sciences by Auguste Comte in the nineteenth century.
Comte believed that the social world is also governed by universal laws, just like the natural
world is governed by such laws as gravity and momentum. Therefore, scientific
experimentation and observation, he postulates, should be the tools to extend knowledge
(Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). This stance then begins to form into a coherent movement during
the early twentieth century, and the development of the now defunct logical positivism. This
group posited that knowledge is that which can be verified by the senses, and as such all
which cannot be observed and verified, such as beliefs and ethics, are not part of science and
does not contribute to knowledge advancement. Even so, they still see values, mores, and
ethics as an important part of mankind, albeit they are not part of scientific knowledge
(Crotty, 1998). Positivists, thus, see scientific findings as objective facts that are firmly
grounded in reality.
Post-positivists, meanwhile, share similar views of reality and knowledge with positivists,
but they disagree with them in that the objective, singular, and external truth can never be
reached by mankind. Post-positivists believe such because measurement, observation, and
reason are ultimately a humanistic endeavor, which is not free from subjective thoughts and
decisions. Perception on reality is, therefore, multiple, though the actual reality remains
single (Healy & Perry, 2000), allowing scientists to falsify previous findings and knowledge
(Koro-Ljunberg & Douglas, 2008). Science can always be improved and enhanced, but how
much the improvement actually is cannot be realistically measured. As new knowledge
emerges, more question arises, and this cycle goes on until the end of time.
Both paradigms also share a common purpose, that is, to generalize, understand, predict, and
discover the relationship between variables (Koro-Ljunberg & Douglas, 2008; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). In social sciences, however, post positivism will be
more appropriate, because findings of social sciences are not entirely objective or singular.
In economics, for example, a theory can be verified in certain locations and under certain
circumstances, but not in other instances.

3. Constructivism
Inspired by Max Weber, constructivism earns its standing in academia when it was
popularized by Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln, among others. It is popularly used as a lens
not to predict variables, but to understand and describe phenomena (Koro-Ljunberg &
Douglas, 2008). The epistemological view of this paradigm is that knowledge, and thus reality,
is multiple and context-bound; there is no single objective truth. This paradigm was
developed as an objection toward (post) positivism, holding ontological and epistemological
stances that contradict those of (post) positivism. Constructivists see that reality and
knowledge does not inherently reside in investigated or observed objects, but they are the
product of the interaction between mind (subject) and object, or experience and object, or
consciousness and object. Meaning comes because the mind has given it so, thus a world with
no consciousness (i.e. with no human) cannot have a meaning. It should be mentioned that
“meaning”, depending on the context of discussion, can either be defined as social reality,
norms, knowledge, worldview, perspective, or beliefs (Lofland, Snow, Anderson, & Lofland,
2005). The mind constructs these meanings based on prior experiences, cultural norms, and
social interactions (Creswell, 2007), hence why some culture sees a “thumbs-up” as a good
sign, while others see it as an insult.
While I mentioned post-positivism as a suitable paradigm for social sciences, constructivism
may well fit them better, because the social world is entirely context-dependent;
consequently, generalization or prediction of findings is difficult. The example that I
mentioned in the final sentence of the previous answer is also suitable for constructivism,
which indeed would help explain why some theories are generalizable and others not.

4. Pragmatism
Pragmatists intend to exit the traditionally compartmented thoughts of ontology and
epistemology and halt the ceaseless debates between (post-) positivists and constructivists,
and instead move on to action and output (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Morgan, 2007). This
paradigm is more interested in problem solving, empirical usefulness, and practicability
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). That is not to say, however, that pragmatists see positivist
and constructivists as wrong; on the contrary, both carry certain truths. However, both still
engage in debates that are no more than philosophical deliberations, which pragmatists are
not interested in. In fact, researchers in the real world does not adhere strictly to either one
view, but they formulate their paradigm according to the research problem at hand: How
best to approach it (Bryman, 2008)?
Epistemologically, pragmatists view knowledge as something that can be verified. More
specifically, knowledge is a product of “inquiry”, a concept developed by John Dewey. Inquiry
is a step-by-step problem-solving strategy, which begins with the identification of a problem
and ends with actions formulated to address the problem (Morgan, 2014). In solving the
problem, pragmatists apply “what works” in terms of methods, methodology, and logic
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2007). If a researcher, for instance, sees that a research
problem can be solved using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, then he
or she is by all means free to do so, so long as he or she remains transparent in reporting the
methods and findings. In this sense, the researcher is no longer a proverbial prisoner, trapped
between choosing one methodology or worldview (Robson, 1993; Creswell & Clark, 2007).
Nonetheless, the ability to choose methods is not an excuse for sloppy work; quality, validity,
and robustness of research and knowledge should always be maintained (Denscombe, 2008).
For a concrete example, suppose that a researcher is interested in measuring religiosity. He
would first interview scholars of the criteria of a religious person before developing a list of
questions. In this instance, he has used both qualitative and quantitative methods (by his use
of interview and survey), and applied constructionism and objectivism epistemologies (by his
inquiry of the scholars’ subjective perspective and his attempt to supposedly measure
religiosity objectively).

References
Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. 2008. Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and
mixed methods research: a view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology. Vol. 11. (4): p. 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401644
Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. C. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
California: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches.
California: Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research
process. California: Sage Publications.
Denscombe, M. 2008. Communities of practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 2, p.
270-283.
Healy, M. & Perry, C. 2000. Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of
qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal. Vol. 3. (3): p. 118-126.
Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher. Vol. 33. (7): p. 14-26.
 Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A. B. 2017. Understanding and applying research paradigms in
educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 6. (5): p. 26-41.
Koro-Ljunberg, M & Douglas, E. P. 2008. State of qualitative research in engineering
education: meta-analysis of JEE articles, 2005-2006. Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 97.
(2): p. 163-175.
Krauss, S. E. 2005. Research paradigms and meaning making: a primer. The Qualitative Report.
Vol. 10. (4): p. 758-770.
Lofland, J., Snow, D. A., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. 2005. Analyzing social settings: a guide
to qualitative observation and analysis. California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. 2016. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. L. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 1.
(1): p. 48-76.
Morgan, D. L. 2014. Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol.
20. (8): 1045-1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733
Robson, C. 1993. Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. 1998. Mixed methodology. Combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches. California: Sage Publications.

View publication stats