In my opinion, the CR perspective delivers a full package containing answers to ontological, epistemological and methodological questions. Many constructivist approaches are merely theoretical and while they deliver interesting insights, they usually do not give advice in terms of concrete ways to approach a given analysis. Some do, though, but it is my impression that CR is much more developed. If you read one of the classic CR books, you will find relevant argumentation that can guide you towards an appropriate way of dealing with your answer.

A friend of mine (Perdue professor) spent his life trying to prove that he exists. I suggested to him that a constructive proof would work fine.

This is the issue, ontology is what determines epistemology. He doesn't need to prove he exists. Getting too philosophical is the issue. You don't need pure constructivism to prove a human existence.

Hi,

In constructivism, you will see the visible part/empirical findings of the iceberg - if we assume your phenomenon as an iceberg. In other words, you will be limited with the visible part of the iceberg. Well, what about the other/invisible part of the iceberg? At this point, critical realism will help you to see the other part, that is, the real level where the causal/generative mechanism is in. This requires a more comprehensive or deep contextual knowledge for your study.

Good morning,

Those articles contain some elements of response that could help you:

https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1503400

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401