Epistemology and ontology
Research Student Generic Skills Training
Programme, College of Social Sciences,
May 2012
Jo Brewis, School of Management
j.brewis@le.ac.uk
Introduction to the session
What today will hopefully assist you to do:
• understand the various philosophical ‘continuums’ at work in
social science research
• outline the key choices involved in research design as a result
• explore the links between philosophical choices and research
practice
Today will also overlap with, build on and reinforce Dr.
Taysum’s session from last November
Today will not provide a detailed and in-depth examination of
all the various philosophical standpoints in social science 
Why do I need to know this stuff?
Pluralism in the social sciences:

subcultures and deviance

migration

poverty

the cost of living

educational engagement

vulnerable students

civil security

online and offline identities

democratization

humanitarian intervention

well-being

social inclusion and exclusion

Corporate Social Responsibility

brands and branding … etc. …
Why do I need to know this stuff?
To identify your position within this contested terrain
To be able to articulate the nature, purpose and status of your
project and the conclusions it will produce
To be able to present a cogent, considered and justified
methodology in your thesis, and to have it considered on its
own merits
“Understanding different traditions of scholarship can help
researchers identify the match between their own intellectual
preferences and a particular mode of inquiry so that they can
develop a research style that is personally meaningful and
simultaneously meets the standards of a wider academic
community.” (Prasad, 2005: 8)
So what’s all this about the philosophy of
social science then?
Key philosophical question: to what extent, if any, can or
should the study of ‘society’ be scientific?
is society the same kind of object as the natural world?
is society governed by laws equivalent to the laws that
govern events in the natural world?
what does it mean to have knowledge about society?
is knowledge of society equivalent to knowledge of the
natural world?
is knowledge of society objective?
what is the goal of the study of society?
how should we acquire knowledge of society?
So what’s all this about the philosophy of
social science then?
First order questions (RQs) – eg, how do social workers
interpret professionalism and professionalization as it relates
to their occupational practice?
Second order questions (philosophy of SS) – how should we
study these interpretations?
The issues at stake here are ontological, epistemological and
methodological
What do these terms mean?
So what’s all this about the philosophy of
social science then?
Ontology: the question of “what reality is like, the basic
elements it contains” (Silverman, 2010: 109)
Epistemology: “study of the criteria by which we can know
what does and does not constitute warranted, or scientific,
knowledge” (Johnson and Duberley, 2000: 2-3)
Methodology: theories of gathering knowledge, how we can
know what we are able to know
Now back to slide number 5 …
So what’s all this about the philosophy of
social science then?
And, to summarize, “The way we think the world is (ontology)
influences: what we think can be known about it
(epistemology); how we think it can be investigated
(methodology and research techniques); the kinds of theories
we think can be constructed about it; and the political and
policy stances we are prepared to take” (Fleetwood, 2005: 197)
Plus, the ‘if it looks like a duck’ adage
And a quick health warning’ before we proceed
The philosophical ‘continuums’
Continuum number 1
From realism and unification of method/ monism/ scientism
And objectivism: “truth is defined as the accurate
representation of an independently existing reality. The
accumulation of knowledge is thereby considered to be the
accumulation of accurate representations of what is
(independently) outside of us.” (Smith and Hodkinson, 2005:
916)
And an emphasis on quantities/ preoccupation with
measurement
… often bracketed together under the catch-all positivism …
The philosophical ‘continuums’
To idealism/ constructionism: “the assumptions guiding
positivism derive from the study of largely inanimate or
biological phenomena that lack the capacity for self-reflection
and cultural production. By contrast the social sciences are
inevitably concerned with social, economic and cultural worlds
that are constituted by the human capacity for meaningful
understanding and action.” (Prasad, 2005: 5)
Things behave, people experience (Laing, cited in Johnson and
Duberley, 2000: 34)
The Thomas (1966) theorem: “if we believe something to be
real, it is real enough in its consequences for we behave as if it
does exist” (Smith, 1998: 161)
The philosophical ‘continuums’
“consensual beliefs and concerted practices give rise to
objective social institutions. Accordingly, institutional facts
like the value of currency or the price of shares on a stock
exchange depend upon collective actions that presuppose the
objectivity of those facts. These socially constructed facts are
real, in the sense that they are intersubjective, exist
independently of the observer, and persist in time, but their
reality depends upon, and is continually sustained by,
reflexive subscription to that very reality.” (Lynch, 2000: 29)
Also, when/ how does someone die? JFK, suicide statistics
(Douglas, 1967), DNR orders, living wills, euthanasia etc.
And crime statistics (Kitsuse and Cicourel, 1963)
The philosophical ‘continuums’
And subjectivism/ interpretivism: “Something called
subjectivity could be demonstrated in all research
programmes … One’s own life history, belongingness to a
specific research community, and everyday experience inform
how one thinks and acts in relationship to the subject matter.
These have an impact on the questions asked, the language
used and, by implication, the results produced … Questions of
determining which problems to study, the relevancy of
findings, and the translation back to the subject’s world have
always posed constitutive and value-laden issues at the very
heart of any ‘objective’ research that intends to have a social
effect.” (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000: 63, 65-66)
The philosophical ‘continuums’
Which is linked to Weberian value relevance
And the general belief that social science is different from
natural science
So we need to emphasize qualities, using “an array of
interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode,
translate and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not
the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring
phenomena in the social world” (Van Maanen, cited in Alvesson
and Deetz, 2000: 70)
The philosophical ‘continuums’
Continuum Number 2
From explanation
And deductivism: “Deductive research starts with existing
theories and concepts and formulates hypotheses that are
subsequently tested; its vantage point is received theory.”
(Gummesson, 2000: 63)
And generalization (Aristotle’s episteme)/ external validity
To exploration
The philosophical ‘continuums’
And inductivism: “Inductive research starts with real-world
data, and categories, concepts, patterns, models, and
eventually, theories emerge from this input.” (Gummesson,
2000: 63)
And reluctance to generalize (Aristotle’s techne)/
transferability
Continuum Number 3
From fixed and ‘artificial’ research design
The philosophical ‘continuums’
To flexible and ‘natural’ research design: “Once one relaxes
the ontological assumption that the world is a concrete
structure, and admits that human beings, far from merely
responding to the social world, may actively contribute to its
creation, the dominant methods become increasingly
unsatisfactory, and indeed, inappropriate.” (Morgan and
Smircich, 1980: 498)
Links to the idea of ‘re-search’ and the Russian dolls
(Gummesson, 2000: 22)
Continuum Number 4
From validity understood as accurate measurement
The philosophical ‘continuums’
And reliability as consistent measurement
To validity understood as plausibility: “Can our cocreated
constructions be trusted to provide some purchase on some
important human phenomenon?” (Guba and Lincoln, 2005:
205)
Here, validity “cannot be determined by following prescribed
formulas. Rather its quality lies in the power of its language to
display a picture of the world in which we discover something
about ourselves and our common humanity.” (Buchanan, cited
in Silverman, 2010: 304)
And reliability as dependability
The philosophical ‘continuums’
Links to methodological awareness: “a commitment to showing
as much as possible to the audience of research studies … the
procedures and evidence that have led to particular
conclusions, always open to the possibility that conclusions
may need to be revised in the light of new evidence” (Seale,
cited in Silverman, 2010: 274)
And/ or reliability as irrelevant: “once we treat social reality as
always in flux, then it makes no sense to worry about whether
our research instruments measure accurately” (Silverman,
2010: 289, summarizing Marshall and Rossman)
Continuum Number 5
From macro (scope)
The philosophical ‘continuums’
To micro (depth): “seek[ing] clarity and insight by closely
examining apparently ‘small’ objects … eschewing empty
accounts of ‘big’ issues in favour of elegant analyses that make
a lot out of a little” (Silverman, 2007: 29)
Continuum Number 6
From data gathered/ expressed numerically and analysed
statistically
To data gathered in words and analysed thematically
What are the preferences and trends in
social science research?
Although attempts to generate scientific, authoritative
knowledge about society have “been increasingly
questioned since the middle of the twentieth century … [they
are] something that many social researchers would like to
forget“ (Smith, 1998: 75)
… and there has been a “distinct turn of the social sciences
towards more interpretive, postmodern, and criticalist
practices and theorizing” (Guba and Lincoln, 2005: 191) …
“[such] assumptions [still] remain pervasive and continue to
provide the general rationale that underpins most theory and
research in the social sciences … ” (Johnson and Duberley,
2000: 11), especially in the US
What are the preferences and trends in
social science research?
Plus the ‘constellation’ idea: “In the material world of actual
research practice, the tidy abstraction of the paradigm as a
hermetic domain of shared assumptions and world-views
quickly begins to give way to the messy reality of contested
ideas, multiple ongoing influences, and constant
experimentation.” (Prasad, 2005: 8)
So social science research is rather like The Celestial
Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge ...
What are the preferences and trends in
social science research?
… where animals are apparently classified as: “(a)
belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d)
sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h)
included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j)
innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
(l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n)
that from a long way off look like flies.” (Borges, cited in
Foucault, 1973: xv)
Some food for thought, then
There is no ‘one best philosophical way’: “there are no
secure or incontestable foundations from which we can begin
any consideration of our knowledge of knowledge – rather
what we have are competing philosophical assumptions that
lead us to engage with [social phenomena] … in particular
ways.” (Johnson and Duberley, 2000: 4)
Methodology is not an end in itself: “Strategies of
inquiry put paradigms of interpretation into action.” (Denzin
and Lincoln, 2005: 25)
Some food for thought, then
Die-hard/ unacknowledged ontological and epistemological
commitments may also blind us to alternatives because they
mean that we “view the world in a particular way” (Burrell and
Morgan, 1979: 24)
We may even argue that “for he who has a hammer, every
problem is a nail” (Gummesson, 2000: 66, often attributed
to Abraham Maslow)
Summary
1. The ontological, epistemological and methodological
questions of what it is that social scientists study, what we can
know about our object of enquiry and how we should
undertake this knowledge gathering are highly contested
2. We can view the various debates as a series of continua,
where individual researchers might be located at different
points on each
3. As doctoral students it is crucial that you develop an indepth understanding of the various debates and controversies
References
The following are the sources which were used to compile this lecture. Chapters and/ or
page numbers are specified where appropriate to suggest material which should be
especially relevant to issues covered in the lecture.
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000) Doing Critical Management Research, London: Sage.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis:
Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, London: Heinemann.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005) ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of
qualitative research’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, third edition, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 1-32.
Douglas, J. D. (1967) The Social Meanings of Suicide, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Fleetwood, S. (2005) ‘Ontology in organization and management studies: a critical realist
perspective’, Organization, 12 (2): 197-222.
Foucault, M. (1973) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, New York:
Vintage.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S (2005) `Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, third edition, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 191-215.
Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding Management Research: An Introduction
to Epistemology, London: Sage.
References
Kitsuse, J.I. and Cicourel, A.V. (1963) ‘A note on the uses of official statistics’, Social Problems,
11 (2): 131-139.
Lynch, M. (2000) ‘Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged
knowledge’, Theory, Culture and Society, 17 (3): 26-54.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980) `The case for qualitative research’, Academy of
Management Review, 5 (4): 491-500.
Prasad, P. (2005) Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions, New
York: M.E. Sharpe.
Seale, C. (ed.) (2012) Researching Society and Culture, third edition, London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2007) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About
Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2010) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, third edition,
London: Sage.
Smith, M. (1998) Social Science in Question, London: Open University Press/ Sage.
Smith, J.K. and Hodkinson, P. (2005) ‘Relativism, criteria, and politics’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S.
Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, third edition, Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage, pp. 915-932 .
Thomas, W.I. (1966 [1931]) `The relation of research to the social process’ in Janowitz, M.
(ed.) W.I. Thomas on Social Organization and Social Personality, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 289-305.
NB the fourth edition of the Sage Handbook is now on order in the library