the ontology and epistemology is complex phenomenon to understand the nature of research. In my case i need to understand both regarding with my research. So need to understand the simple meaning of these two words
I will try and answer your question from the perspective of carrying out social research as this often raises a number of metatheoretical questions that relate to ontology and epistemology. Ontology refers to what sort of things exist in the social world and assumptions about the form and nature of that social reality. It is concerned with whether or not social reality exists independently of human understanding and interpretation; for instance, is there a shared social reality or ‘multiple context-specific realities’.
Broadly speaking, three distinct ontological positions identified are realism, idealism and materialism (Snape & Spencer 2003). Realism claims that there is an external reality independent of what people may think or understand it to be, whereas, idealism maintains that reality can only be understood via the human mind and socially constructed meanings. Similar to realism, materialism also claims that there is a real world but it is only the material or physical world that is considered to be real. Other phenomena, for instance, beliefs, values or experiences arise from the material world but do not shape it.
Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and ways of knowing and learning about social reality. Two main perspectives for knowing are positivism and interpretivism. Constructivism and ‘naturalistic’ are terms commonly referred to in the literature and sometimes in an inconsistent way for interpretivism (Guba & Lincoln 1994). The term constructivism is helpful because it identifies the basic principle that reality is socially constructed; a relativist position that holds the view that there is no external reality independent of human consciousness (Robson 2002).
I believe I can provide short answers: (1) ontology is how we come to know. (2) epistemology is how we know. They should be 2 related things (but you might know the way people are).
You might check out my Project, "Human Ethology and Development". I try to deal with ontology, epistemology, and ontogeny (the unfolding during development (child development)). (All three should be related!!)
Ontology deals with what kinds of things exist. Epistemology deals with what we can know and how we can know it (the means and conditions for knowledge), including how we can know what exists. The two are interconnected, since how we can know depends on the nature of the objects of knowledge, and determining what exists and its nature depends on how we can know.
Our ontology (or inventory) of the world might include physical objects, minds, events, properties, values, and abstract entities such as numbers and sets. Or some of these might be reduced to others. (e.g. a nominalist ontology might say there are no numbers, only symbols or inkmarks; a physicalist might say there are no minds only brains).
Epistemology might claim that some or all of these are means to knowledge: perception, sensation, intuition, reason (deduction, induction, abduction) — even faith as some religious believers claim. Epistemology might also attempt to define what it is to know: e.g. to improve on the traditional view of knowledge as "justified true belief".
Ontology means the study of things around us in simple and Epistemology is the methods of obtaining the true knowledge of the above "things".
According to most of the Eastern philosophies, we use perception (Pratyaksha), inference (Anumana), Scriptural testimony/maxims (Aptopadesha), Analogy (Upamana), reasoning (Yukti) etc. as the methods of obtaining true knowledge. We call it "Pramana Vijnana" or Epistemology.
By using those methods, we obtain the true knowledge about the "Padartha" around us. Means, in the universe. Different philosophies have been introduced various kinds of Padartha(s). They are the objects of the above called true knowledge.
As for a example, in Vaisheshika Philosophy, six Padartha(s) have been introduced. Matter (Dravya), Attributes (Guna), Action (Karma), Saamaanya and Vishesha. (No point of explaining latter two in this stage). In Nyaya there are 16 of them. According to their philosophy, you have to understand above "Padartha(s)" if you need to obtain "Moksha" or the reality.
So, in simple, Ontology is the study of things in the universe and Epistemology is the methods you use to study them.
Please contact me if you need any further clarifications. Dr. Suranga. 0716018107
Burrell & Morgan (1979) named epistemology, ontology, human nature and methodology as philosophical assumptions.
Slevitch (2011) states that ontology (onto in Greek ‘being’ and logia ‘science, study, theory’) can be defined as the study of reality or things that comprise reality. The view of Guba & Lincoln, (1994) is that the ontological consideration is what is the form and nature of reality and therefore, what can be known about it is “how things really are” and “how things really work”.
According to Bryman & Bell (2013) an epistemological issue concerns the question of what is (or should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a discipline. They also state that a particularly central issue in this context is the question of whether or not the social world can and should be studied according to the same principles, procedures and ethos as the natural sciences.
Meanwhile Allison & Hobbs (2006) mention that ontological consideration is about “What is the nature of the knowable, or what is the nature of reality?” and the epistemological consideration is about “What is the nature of the relationship between the knower (the inquirer) and the known (or knowledge)?”
References
Allison, H.E. and Hobbs, R.J., 2006. Science and policy in natural resource management: Understanding system complexity. Cambridge University Press.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Elements of the sociology of corporate life.
Slevitch, L., 2011. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: ontological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1), pp.73-81.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), p.105.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2011. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
All you explanations have really been of good help to me as well.
Thanks
Ontology is the beeing of things. It means the beeing itself for example of matter and not how matter appears to human. So if you are talking about an ontological theory of xy you try to explain how xy is brought to be in the world independently from how it is perceived by us. Epistemology instead is something different. It means attempts made by human to gain knowledge about the world. As humans we have several senses to realise the world we live in and we have brain that is used to interprate stimuli in a specific way (the way is set by experiences we make as individuals during our lifetime). So the way we see the world as humans is not the state of beeing of this world. For example as humans we cannot see UV-waveleghts but they are in the world. That is why scientists - who are humans - try to find a way of gaining objective knowledge about the world that is independent of the human perception. Epistemology therefore is the theory of gaining objective knowledge. But the question is more if we - as humans - will be able at all to produce that kind of objectivity or if - as I assume - will be bound for ever on the evolutionary strings of human thinking about the world.
"Me":
The terms used in research are staggeringly mind-boggling. With the 'legend' "less is more" expert researchers then write cumulatively thousands of pages proposing clarification of a carnival of 'research methods'..and succeed in further frustration, even obfuscation, in my view.
The explanation of ontology and epistemology above is not much different (for me)..it is vague and hard to grasp. I'll try my way, let me know if I have heresy. By the way ontology, epistology and axiology generally ‘co-parade’ in research discussions.
1). ‘ology’ inferring a knowledge-of anything…..and which may be subject of discussion.
2).Scientists may prove factual reality of 'existence' through comparison with other objects, chemical constructs or theoretical situations from which effects emerge and indicate a presence.
By connecting one existence with another...for simple example as a compound, a verifiable 'new existence' which lessened 'an older existence'.
3).Before we were born things existed. During our life 'things'.....,existences.... are maintained, varied, created and destroyed whether we sense them of not. This situation continues after our ability to sense them has gone for example through death of any or all senses.
4).Scientists may prove factual reality of 'existence' through comparison with other objects, chemical constructs or theoretical situations from which effects emerge and indicate a presence. By connecting one existence with another...for simple example as a compound, a verifiable 'new existence' which lessened 'an older existence'
5).Ontology is essentially a descriptive word concerning a form of 'knowledge', realising or accepting that things do exist, whether able to be sensed or not (e.g energy forms). That might include our purpose in existing. We exist. Why?
6).Kicking a rock tells us little of the 'existence' but it lets us know it exists..or our senses let us know at least one nature of its existence leading to us realising it is a 'rock'.
7).Epistology is ‘knowledge through our sensors for knowledge’…which may be subject of discussion. We know from what we sense about, say, a factual existence. A person describing a box, for others to draw will almost certainly see a variety of sketches….Their epistology is individual and based on their own construction and experiences.
8).It can be factual that our planet exists. We can show that in applied-science, but do the other planets and cosmic visions we see actually exist? Scientists seem certain that black holes exists, are a reality, that cosmic material is sucked into them…away from us. There is no absolute proof they exist and if they do, which side of the ‘black hole’ are we actually ‘on’.
9).For me the research for blackholes is presently epistemological. A certainty of existence owing to observation by our senses, however argued, is not an ontology.
10).Axiomatic and axiology come from the same Greek root pertaining to worth(worthiness) which we may call ‘value’…the value of our research selection, the ethics and fulness we apply during the research…exhaustively seeking appropriate literature, interviews and other methods of gathering material for an answer to the R.Q.,… for example not leaving-out information which doesn’t suit an assumption we want to sustain or ‘gets in the way’, or adding information to ‘facilitate’ an outcome or ‘make sense’. One should not avoid contrary information uncovered, but discuss it. Axiology is also the ethical and unsullied value applied to our research discussions and conclusions.
11). Does that explanation help?
We can start by explaining each term separately. Let's begin with epistemology, which is also called theory of knowledge. It answers the questions relating to the scope and methods of knowing. For example, how we distinguish fact from fiction or opinion is epistemological. Some opinions are fact, while some facts are fallible upon further examination. This is the domain of epistemology. Now let's talk about ontology. It's the part of metaphysics that deals with the existence, nature, and causation of things. For example, to say that something exists or does not exists is ontological. In my humble opinion, this is how ontology relates to epistemology: If for example you say to me that the apple in your hand is red and I ask, "...how do you know it is red? In fact, I think, it is green." We have started an epistemological argument. The moment you say, "...wait a second, does "green" exist independent of the apple? - we have entered into the "ontologico-epistemological" horizon.
I hope this is simple enough. Forwarded from an answer I gave elsewhere on RG a couple of days ago.
Hi Paul. Is colour a reality or a perception? Does argument legitimate ontological claims?... Facts exist whether we know of them or not. Facts don't exist just because we believe they do. People who were well read knew there is a new world order in the final throes of taking control of the world....others mocked it as a conspiracy theory....doesn't exist....Bush, one of its bully boy genocidalist flunkeys then advised us of the existence of the NWO...ok..now it exists, he said it's ok to believe in it....hang on but five minutes ago it didn't exist...?...that changed from not existing, to existing (ok to believe it now...) because of mind-wiring.
Hussein had to go ...but hang on of course he had to go, he had to go because of all those WMD's and tubes and things threatening the world so they were really truly facts that brought catastrophic results and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.........Well he didn't have them....Whaaaaat??….well why did he have to go?.....He had to go to allow IS to flourish so the USA and it's best mate who's name shall not be squoken could begin a new role in elevating the politics of tension and fear ..releasing the new windmills for Rocket-cinante to attack ….Unlike the WMD's and the refinery tubes .IS is a fanaticists fascist WMD....Really??? I'm mohammedan so I don't agree...that's your imagination, Yanqui propaganda....they are always at it....it's not reality.....I'm Charlie Brown and whenever something is a matter of opinion...I'm always right!!
Aaaaaaarrrrggghhhh!!….where's Schroeder.
Well...what IS reality? Is it so because it's so? or is it so because the Pope says it's so?
Were the WMD's a reality because people believed they existed? Did the NWO become a reality only because it was admitted? If it is retracted tomorrow, will it still exist? Does the way each of us saw or sees these political machinations emanating from Binger Mileikowsky say a thing can exist and not exist? at the same time?
Well...Ontology is kind of abstract....it's...it's...it's an assumption about the very nature of what exists...
Your reply is ontological, it's the way you see things, something identified also..others use the concept...it's just a word describing a reality .
Epistemology relates us to acceptable knowledge and its communication. If you held the apple was white you might be struggling to have anyone see that as valid, or legitimate but could see it as acceptable because they don't give a toss about what colour you think it is. That word "whatever"!!
I just thought you might like a brisk start to the new year Paul.....
"Facts exist whether we know of them or not. Facts don't exist just because we believe they do."
Anthony, I agree fully with your statement as quoted above. Whether color is a reality or a perception, as you asked, may be explained by the same token. Is a perception not a reality? Remember Bishop Berkeley's
debunked idea: "To be is to be perceived." Thanks, and best wishes to you.
Hi Paul the ultimate point of my self-amusing but ontologically based dissertation is that an ontology can be right or wrong good or evil and so on and that it's the cause of the world's problems.
I don't agree perception is a reality, unless placing it amongst others. I'd see it as, say, 'my reality' if I include it in my life rather than just theorising in argument or debate. I think ontology has a proviso in a sense of genuine-ness about it, even if only momentary. Last night....after some failed internet lecture arrangements, one eventuated. I asked at the outset of the Research lecturer "is this really happening?...or is it just my ontology?...He did have a laugh as did the others but that simple question may have lifted the veil on 'ontology' for someone. It's a difficult perception.
George Berkeley, glib of tongue as a Bishop... and 'perceptions'?...George, of the land of brogue, proposed that the only things we perceive are our perceptions. "Erin go Bragh" George.
Can anyone provide me an example from educational research (title of two problems) to clarify ontology and Epistemology ?
I thought it had been been clarified and we were having a little fun with the definitions, and we are speaking from educational research, however that's my ontology. Mr Khan try this it may be clearer for you, the URL is the citation;
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl257/classical/ontology_and_epistemology.htm
If not enough, please get back to me and I'll refer you to a good lecture on both
Ontology and Epistemology
Ontology: The branch of metaphysics (philosophy concerning the overall nature of what things are) is concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of things that actually exist. In other words addressing the question: What is existence? and What is the nature of existence? When we ask deep questions about "what is the nature of the universe?" or "Is there a god?" or "What happens to us when we die?" or "What principles govern the properties of matter?" we are asking inherently ontological questions.
Epistemology: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge itself, its possibility, scope, and general basis. More broadly: How do we go about knowing things? or How do we separate true ideas from false ideas? or How do we know what is true? or "How can we be confident when we have located 'truth'?" "What are the systematic ways we can determine when something is good or bad?"
So ontology is about what is true and epistemology then is about methods of figuring out those truths.
Both terms, ontology and epistemology, derive from the Greek, as do their meaning as investigations that the ancients Greeks, above all, Aristotle engaged in. For Aristotle, ontology is anything other than merely the study of "what kinds of things exist". This is its degenerate meaning in today's analytic philosophy. For Aristotle, ontology is the study of beings simply insofar as they are beings (entities). Hence it investigates the modes of being of beings. For example, a being's (categorial) mode of being can be what it is (its essence or 'whatness'), how it is (its quality or 'howness'), how much it is (its quantity or 'how-much-ness), etc.
A completely different mode of a being's being is whether it reveals itself in its truth or only falsely. For example, fake gold reveals itself only falsely in a false appearance of gold.
Epistemology, on the other hand, concerns the knowledge (epistaemae) of beings, especially how they come about. The paradigm of knowledge for Aristotle is the know-how of how to produce them, that is, how to bring them about through cause and effect. For example, a carpenter has the know-how of how to bring forth, say, a table, i.e. his knowledge is the efficient cause for bringing forth a table, etc. Therefore relations of cause and effect are front and centre for any knowledge (i.e. science), even today. All knowledge presupposes already, and takes for granted, an understanding of beings insofar as they beings. In other words, ontology is a deeper investigation of the world than any knowledge or science can ever be, since the latter presuppose the former. Ontology lives from the difference between (modes of) being and beings (entities), the so-called ontological difference that is suppressed everywhere in today's analytic philosophy. That's enough for today.
Great question Chamila, and what a fun discussion it has spawned! Its easy to get caught up in the language around highly abstract concepts (such as ontology and epistemology), but if we are able to simplify the language down to its underlying ideas and intentions, it seems that ontology is about how we experience "truth-value" in relation to the world (how we make distinctions between what is real to us and what is not real to us), and epistemology is about how we can then "know" the difference between these value states (how we can derive "true" information in relation to the world). Thus, in quite simple terms, ontology refers to what reality is, and epistemology refers to how we can then know that reality.
I'm not sure what area you are researching, nor whether you want to perform more applied or more theoretical research, but I research in education (hello Mr Khan!), and in this area (in most social research, really) we tend to use a constructivist ontology (truth-value comes from what my mind does with information from the world) coupled to an interpretist epistemology (I can therefore only know truth from a subjective perspective) for more theoretical research; and a Pragmatism ontology (truth-value is determined by the applied usefulness of information - does it work or not?) coupled to a problem-based "functional" epistemology (I know what is true by solving a research problem successfully) for more applied research. There are, in fact, multiple variances on these, with a "critical" ontology also being quite common in educational research (emphasises the socially-constructed nature of reality), but I don't wish to get into more complicated explanations here, so hope what I have provided is helpful to you. The only other bit I would add is that interpretist epistemologies tend to focus on qualitative research methods, and functional epistemologies tend to focus on quantitative and mixed methods research methods. All the best with your own research...Tony
Hello everyone. Thanks for your contributions. I get what epistemology and ontology are, but I would appreciate an explanation of how they would impact on the research in terms of method and analysis. So, I am a psychology student and my diss is about how teachers in a particular community, perceive their identity. I have chosen for my ontology, critical realism, and for my epistemology, social constructionism. I have used semi-structured interviews and am using an inductive thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke (2006, 2012). I conceive due to the aforementioned ontological and epistemological choices, when I am analysing what my participants have said, I will analyse for the extra-discursive, e.g. values and structures in society that have influenced my participants descriptions and actions. Thus, my praxis is critical realist. From my understanding, as I have chosen social constructionism as my epistemology, this is about how I have used the 'lived experiences' of my teachers, but this is not only contextualised, but also subject to their individual interpretations. Can someone help me to understand please, if I am on the right track, as I have encountered conflicting interpretations of the above. Thank you for your help in advance.
Hi Maria. Not wishing to over-simplify, but ontologically you would need to check your thematic and extra-discursive analyses with each participant to make sure you have represented the "truth value" of these correctly from the participant's POV, and epistemologically your data gathering process is already moving in the right direction by using interviews. However you might like to add focus groups, or participant mind mapping, etc. to gather further inductive information around the notion of teacher identity in relation to social values and structures as perceived by the teachers. Also, a key goal of critical realism is to perform research that "makes a difference", so perhaps collecting pre and post information along these lines would provide one way of identifying any "thematic movement" that might occur across the span of your research? Focus group discussions would be one way to identify possible group-level themes relatively quickly, for what its worth. Hope this is helpful, and all the best with your research.
Ontological question: what exists?
Epistemological question: what is structure of it?
Causal question: why exists?
Those questions work well to explore the material world where we accept the dualism of objective and subjective position. Those questions become non-sense in the social world where human beings can not be reduced further.
Hope such simpleness can help.
Raja Muhammad Shoaib You have simply copied and pasted my answer from "Popular Answers" above. That is plagiarism and I am reporting it to RG.
Chamila, Ontomology is the system of belief or being about what constitutes a fact and the procedure of how this established fact (knowledge) is obtained is called Epistemology.
Chamila, Ontology is the system of belief or being about what constitutes a fact and the procedure of how this established fact (knowledge) is obtained is called Epistemology.
Ontology is the study of reality and epistemology is the study of knowledge
Ontology refers to "reality" and Epistemology concerns "knowledge" and "knowing". Depending on one's paradigm choice, what is reality, what counts as knowledge, and ways of knowing, differ.
Disciplines also have preferred ways of knowing and conceive of reality differently.
Assuming that you are researching in the area of humanities, i would say that, as onthology refers to reality (the way or the forms that the social being of the social process exists) and epistemology refers to how we should study this reality making science, Onthology preceeds epistemology. In other ways, the onthology of the social being that you study throws light and gives the main directions to choose ou develop epistemology.
ontology is the study of being, you try to find the things very first time, or plenty of work is done but you are looking at another paradigm of that. but in both cases the reality of that exists before you find. like why do you research about Masculinity as Connell and Michael kimmel and many other done and wrote a lot of material for the citation.
and why do you want to study again and again Divorce ratio? why do you want to study marital satisfaction again and again? divorce exists somewhere. marital satisfaction exists somewhere even intangibly but you still want to study? but all these issues all these social problem exists around you. you are not the one to create it.
that existence is the ontology.
now how do you execute that study? either with positivists approach or interpretivists approach.?
if you like to follow positivist then you will adopt Quantitative research design.
on the other if you would like to go in-depth then you will join interpretivist approach or Qualitative research design.
Applying the answer, we can imagine a positivist, functionalist or technicist research (generally ensambled or articulated under unique perspective), to which reallity is seen as "things" (social facts maly be considered things - Emile Durkheim), therefore, articulated with these theories that consider the imobility of reality, its systemic-organized character that is already presented (positum - given), not subject to transformation or intrinsecally problematic, thus having contradictions and conflict as "problems" that should be anulated or erased, emerges the necessary METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH. As reallity is considered as ensamble of systemicly organized "things", knowing reallity - making science (researching) is the description of is objective (corporal - embodied (phisically) characteristics: substance, form, measures (varied). The emerging conflicts between groups, individuals, classes, or whatever "problems" appear when analysing-describing the object, are regarded as errors (social, grupal or individual) that have to be solved or dismantled. These onthological and methodological perspectives (as exemples) define the very structure of the cited research. On the other hand, and in opposition to that, any Dialectic theory will articulate episthemology to onthological understanding of the complex, contradictory, articulated (part-whole and singular-singular) and under permanente transformation-human created (historical) character of social reality (either considered under global approach - totalities, or as parts articulated under whole phenomena. [email protected]
Hi, for anyone still unclear about ontology and epistemology, there are some excellent YouTube videos by a Canadian nurse educator, Laura Killam, including one on the difference between ontology and epistemology. You will find them under nursekillam on YouTube. I hope this helps anyone who is still unclear.
You might also find Prof. Tara Brabazon's videos on You tube related to ontology , epistemology very helpful.
Ontology is about particulars and universals. there are two positions: Realism and Nominalism. Realism believes in particulars and Universals, Nominalism believes in particulars alone. For example particulars are physical things we can see like (Man, animals etc) and Universals are things that occur in thoughts like wisdom, love, generous etc
These two gentlemen have explained them in simple language, you may want to make use of their article. Article An introduction to research paradigms
Reliable definitions can be found quickly at the following link
https://www.iep.utm.edu/
Chamila, the issue about ontology and epistemology has occupied researchers and others for quite some time now. In simple layman's terms, ontology focuses on the nature of reality (of daily life) whilst epistemology centres on the nature of knowledge (i.e. the tools we use to facilitate our understanding of our daily lived realities). Hope this helps.
Ontology is the explanation to any occurrence or situation, epistemology is the process of the explanation, as George Floyd killing-has it been an occurrence or intentional activity? If it is to be explained in context to objectivist approach (ontology)- it is a sad occurrence, non influenced individual activity, from constructivist approach (ontology) it has the connection to the current authorized powerful people's influence. Epistemologically you may explain the constructivist standpoint in many manners like interpretivism or constructivism.
Not so good, just tried to portrait my understanding.. appreciate critics.. :)
Ontology is one's conception of reality---the world that we live in; Epistemology is our idea of the knowledge which we can glean from our conception of reality.
Simple---or as complex as one might (needlessly) want to make it.
You may find this helpful too. I found it on a site by Salma Patel: http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explained-in-simple-language/
It seems to load very large, but if you click on it, the image should open in a different window and you can see all of it...Cheers :-)
Ontology is the study of being. it is the starting point of all research, after which one's epistemological and methodological position logically follow. Ontological assumptions are concerned with what we believe constitutes social reality. Epistemology is branches of philosophy concern with the nature and forms of knowledge, how it can be acquired and how communicated to another human beings.
Ontology is such an interesting area of reseach to consider, as can be seen from the wide variety of reponses to this question. Because of this, and for what its worth, I thought I'd share a personal position on it. I suggest an interactive ontology (evolving view), based on functions of human communication (verbal & non-verbal), that posits an ontology wherein information from the environment interacts with what we already know, believe, value, etc., to change our knowledge, or an attitude, a belief or mindset, etc.
In this understanding, ontology is not simply mind-dependent or mind-independent (as normally categorised), but both, and in an ongoing, inter-relational process that does not separate the 'knower' from the 'known' in categorical terms. Examples of this type of ontological interaction include:
•Debate
•Exposition
•Provocation
•Propaganda/Persuasion/Advertising
•Therapeutic Counselling situations
•Developmental Learning
•Cognitive Dissonance
The terms listed below are used often in research and academics. But while in research they are used sparingly, they inform the research study. Interestingly, most people who use the terms including academicians hardly explain them better or provide examples to enable the readers to know the difference. For example, when one describes Ontology as the study of being? In my everyday English I know being is a living thing. What does that mean in this context? Please try to use simple language and provide an example to elucidate the example? Are the terms very difficult thereby forcing researchers and lecturers to push them over to students even when they hardly understand them and how and when they can be used in research? Please explain them and provide an example to enable me to see the difference?
Paradigm
Axiology
Ontology
Epistemology
Methodology
Paradigm shift
Positivism
Modernism
Post-modernism
Post-positivism
Critical Theory
Constructivism
Zachary,
as a simple explanation of 2 of the terms you list, I refer you to my June 3rd post, above.
Everything can be explained simply.
As the physicist Albert Einstein is alleged to have remarked: "If we can't explain something simply, then we don't understand it."
In my understanding.. ontology is categorisation on knowledge. Epistemology is the knowledge obtained from that categorisation.
Ontology is a branch of philosophy that looks at the theory of being; in other words how we look at issues related related to the source of being, the identity of being and purpose of being. Ontology also looks at the nature of reality, and how we view reality.
Another 'simplification' attempt.
Ontologies: Views about the nature of existence.
Epistemologies: Views/relationships about how we can know about existence.
Ontology: what we consider as reality
Epistemology: ways of knowing what is reality
When you, as a researcher, conduct a study, you actually are looking for a given reality or knowledge within your field of research. If you conceive this reality subjectively, it means you believe that it is created in your consciousness. However, if you conceive the same reality objectively, you believe that it exists out there, dependent of you, i.e. you just observed it; you did not create it. This is ontology, how researchers conceptualize the nature of knowledge. Epistemology, on the other hand, is concerned with the way how they gain this knowledge. That is, how they approach the reality they are looking for and it entirely depends on your ontological worldview. If you are objectivist, you follow the positivist/scientific approach. If you are subjectivist, you follow the interpretivist/constructivist approach. Whether you realize it or not, whether you are using this or that approach, you are adopting a given ontological assumption and following a given epistemological paradigm, like it or not :)
Can anyone clarify with real-life relatable examples? I think part of the problem is that the language used to talk about them obfuscates the simpler essences.... so I get lost!
TIA
I acknowledge this is simplified, but a real life example of a mind-dependent ontology (qualitative research) would be constructivism, wherein the subjective experiences of participants are inaccessible to the researcher and therefore epistemologically knowable only as individually contextualised expressions. These expressions (an understanding, opinion, belief, personal insight or position, etc.) represent qualitative data that are indirectly accessed via interviews and the like, and then analysed linguistically to determine themes, key terms, narrative, etc. Generally speaking, this sort of research is helpful when you want to explore participant understanding of a situation, investigate a phenomenon, uncover social relationships, and such. It is generally useful if you want to uncover personal opinions, beliefs, expressions and the like, but not generally useful if you want to be able to generalise from the research.
An example of a mind-independent ontology (quantitative research) would be a scientific or psuedo-scientific experiment, wherein the observed responses of particiants are objectively accessible to the researcher and therefore epistemologically knowable as situationally contextualised behaviours. These behaviours (a rating response, % response, agreement level, observed behaviour, physical marker, etc.) are accessed via surveys, questionnaires, direct observation and instrument measures, and then analysed via quantitative coding to determine individual and group level profiles, averages, ranges, etc. Generally speaking this sort of research is helpful when you want to test a hypothesis or a model, compare groups, evaluate a program or intervention, and such. It is generally useful if you want to be able to generalise from the research findings, but not generally useful for uncovering personal opinions, beliefs, expressions and the like.
An interactive ontology would be where you wanted to investigate both aspects of a research situation, and will generally involve the use of a mixed methods research approach. This type of ontological investigation is supported by the adoption of pragmatism as the overarching research paradigm.
That is brilliant! Just what I was looking for and so very clearly explained. Thanks ever so much.@TonyYeigh
Ontology is what exists in real that cannot be lied. Epistemology is what and how we can know reality/ knowledge (concerned with the nature of knowledge and ways of knowing).
My take would be, Ontology is the assumptions we make about what is real. Does reality exist independent of us? Or is reality only as real as what we perceive, think, feel?
Epistemology would be the ways we show or determine that reality. It is how we know what is real. Through observations using our senses? Through logical reasoning?
...much depends on the reflection of the environment intercepting with the phenomenon. Yes, ontology is about what we already know but epistemology on the source of knowledge within social interactions. Epistemology, in a methodological sense, involves society's reflection on what source of knowledge. We know that swans are black to generalize the abstract concepts that all swans are black! Epistemologically we saw brown swans at the Churchill College of the University of Cambridge! What we know ontologically may not even be absolutely correct in real practice. It is no longer accurate to say that all swans are black epistemologically; we saw brown swans at Churchill college!
Hi Nurul. Every study has an epistemology, and thus so does your study. Your epistemology simply refers to how you will 'know' that the information you collect is actually giving you an authentic and accurate understanding of these community perceptions. Thus, when it comes to planning your study, the important thing is to consider how the information or 'data' you aim to collect is capable of providing clear and trustworthy information about these perceptions.
In this respect, you need to begin by deciding what your ontology is. Seeking to understand the perceptions of others suggests that your ontology is more mind-dependent, that is, more qualitative by nature. You may, however, be able to use a mixed-methods approach if you also wish to include some initial quantitative measures (survey or questionnaire - but there should be a good reason for this, not simply because you want to add this sort of measure arbitrarily).
Your underlying position concerning the nature of reality (ontology), coupled to the specific research questions for your study, are what will drive your decisions concerning the trustworthiness or validity of your data - your epistemology in other words. Please read through the many different responses to Chamila's original question from others to get a better idea of how these sorts of considerations can be approached, and wishing you a successful study moving forward... :))
Nurul, we (every researcher) is automatically doing both ontology and epistemology every time we implement a study. The point is to be aware of what your ontology and epistemology is, not whether or not you might be doing these things...
Understandable Nurul, these words represent very abstract philosophical concepts about the nature of reality and how to 'know' that reality. It generally takes a fair bit of time going back and forth through different writings and POVs about these concepts before they start to truly make sense. Don't give up though. Give yourself time and patience, and keep working towards a clearer understanding of them as best you can. We all had to start this way, for what it's worth...
Hi Can anyone give a bit more insight as to why relativist ontology is more suited for qualitative research?
Hello, in summary, qualitative research needs the real knowledge to know how something is true or how we know it is true and where came it from then we can know that we know what is saying. To find out that root of the knowledge researcher need to use relativist ontology because it studies every single fact as well.
Ontology means 'What' is there in real. In research you try to see what was the problem that really exists. How do you do that? First you have to know the difference between "problem really exist" vs "problem created or though to exists". The knowledge of knowing the real problem can be through what really exists - through reports, statistics, previous researches, sources through newspapers, etc.
Epistemology is - 'How' do we get knowledge? (What's the process by which knowledge is obtained?
Understanding the philosophical terms of these terms in research is quite challenging. Reading one definition can lead to search for definition of another research term and so on. Simple answers to your questions are difficult. Please keep reading and write down all the definitions and try to infer.
Hi Deidré.
A relativist ontology is more suited for qualitative research because it assumes that what we can know (ontology) is limited to what our minds are able to perceive via constructivism, that is, via indirect knowledge/understanding as constructed from the sensory information our minds have access to. The underlying assumption is that the 'outside' world can never be known directly, and therefore only the relative understanding that each of us construct can ever be the subject of 'knowing' when it comes to a research investigation. I would urge you to begin reading this thread from its very beginning, because there are a lot of really insightful posts along the way that you are likely to find helpful. All the best with it...
Tara,
In light of the question for this discussion thread, a research paradigm is the accepted way of doing science by a scientific community at a particular time---stemming from ontology and epistemology.
Discussion of 'paradigm' usually brings in the work of the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, especially, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which, addressing 'hard' science like physics, he put forward the notion that eventually, a particular way of doing hard science (a paradigm) fails to answer a growing number of questions, leading to the development of a new paradigm which can.
However, social science, unlike hard sciences, has many co-existing ways of doing research, and indeed, Kuhn therefore stated that social science---from the perspective of hard science---was 'pre-paradigmatic' (implying lesser development than hard science) based on his observation that social scientists seeming couldn't agree on one way of doing social science at a particular time.
My own opinion nonetheless, is that social science at any one time is multi-paradigmatic.
Yes---at least for hard natural science like physics---and according to Kuhn (who, as with many writers, has been challenged).
Broadly, social science, looked at in paradigmatic terms, operates within a continuum of 3 key paradigms: positivism; post-positivism; and interpretivism----moving from explanation of topics to understanding of them.
You may find the following two papers useful:
Datta, R. (2015). A relational theoretical framework and meanings of land, nature, and sustainability for research with Indigenous communities. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 20(1), 102-113. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.818957
Hart MA. Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: the development of an indigenous research paradigm. J Indigenous Voices Soc Work. 2010;1(1):1–16. Google Scholar
Ontology= ONTO "being" or existence, reality, the world in the mind and outside.
Logy is the study. So the study of being/existence. What/how/why/where/who/how much/when is (reality? existence?being?).
Now! in social science, there are two ontological stances. Where scientists use to conduct research. Some claim to be positivist and state that reality is independent of human perception "The positivist ontology believes that the world is external (Carson et al., 1988) and that there is a single objective reality to any research phenomenon or situation regardless of the researcher's perspective or belief (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988)".
You can look at positivism or objectivism by the notion of beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and reject it. Since once upon the time fat, women were drawn as beautiful and classy, while thin women as poor, emaciated and uncultured. Now it is the opposite.
Or you can look at it from the lens of people seeing the moon all agreeing it is out there, round luminous and appears at night. You remove one viewer bring another they will describe it as the same thing. Reality is out there. Single objective reality regardless if one person says it's a large plate of cheesecake.
On the other hand, a relativist which is the far end of the paradigm claim that "The knowledge acquired in this discipline is socially constructed rather than objectively determined (Carson et al., 2001, p.5) and perceived (Hirschman, 1985, Berger and Luckman, 1967, p. 3: in Hudson and Ozanne, 1988)."
Which beauty is indeed in the eyes of the beholder, what is beautiful for one person might be ugly to another. Beauty is socially constructed. For instance " Lincoln and Guba (1985) explain that these multiple realities also depend on other systems for meanings, which make it even more difficult to interpret in terms of fixed realities (Neuman, 2000)" and Relativist ontology is the belief that reality is a finite sub- subjective experience (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) and nothing exists outside of our thoughts. The reality from a relativist perspective is not distinguishable from the subjective experience of it (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). So if there was one human on this planet, and he dies, reality or existence is irrelevant. How we see the moon dependent on our subjective experience. In other words, a tribe on a faraway island might not see the moon as a planet but as a God? To them, it is not a round-shaped luminous rock.
As for Epistemology= Epistasthai (To know-how-do, know) and Episteme is (Knowledge). Logy is the study of. The study of knowing how to gain knowledge. in other words, the relationship between reality and research.
An objectivist epistemological position would say:
If we see the moon as a round luminous rock, then to study it is to objectively try to measure is independent of the researchers own perspective and beliefs, places an emphasis on measurement, numbers and hard data. Not on words and their meanings.
Using a telescope or other devices, measure its diameter and radius, distance, study it in relation to other rocks and make conclusions, without your own beliefs. Letting evidence speak for itself.
While beauty can be measured with experiments and surveys. Hypothesising that a beautiful person has symmetrical features, there are a cause and effect, symmetry in the face makes the person attractive. Babies from different nations reaction to different types of face what is considered ugly and what is universally considered beautiful. So for an objectivist epistemological position, it is possible to obtain hard, secure objective knowledge. Research focus on generalization and abstraction. Thought governed by hypotheses and stated theories.
How do we know? We know by measuring objective knowledge, which is out there, outside our personal beliefs and subjectivity. We can gain knowledge by measuring cause and effect, knowledge is independent of us, anyone can objectively and scientifically measure it and obtain it. Beauty is symmetry a survey shows, the moon is a luminous large round rock the scientific measurement evidence shows, anyone who measures it and compares it to another white rock will say the same thing.
On the other hand, there is the subjectivist epistemological position. HEYYY there is no objective reality, there are multiple realities (Good for social studies and social structures and entities, regulation, business management, psychology etc).
Beauty is influence by magazines, TV, Media, this is why white is considered more beautiful than black, reinforcement from social learning and media. One black swan is enough to falsify the objective measurement. White is not beautiful to an indigenous tribe in the Amazon or the Indian island. A white girl or man might be perceived as ghosts or faded to these cultures. White teeth are not always beautiful, some Indonesian tribes chew beetle nuts to make their teeth black and beautiful. The moon is not just a white round rock, it is a god to some people. The shape and material of it are irrelevant to these cultures. You cannot convince them its a rock. Its symbolic meaning is more important. IF we asked what is the moon, or what is beauty?
Thus, how do we know, how do we gain knowledge? understood through ‘perceived’ knowledge. Research focuses on the specific contexts, does not seek to generalise, seeks to explain, interpret, the world is how we interpret it. For that tribe, black teeth are beautiful this is how the knowledge of beauty is socially constructed for them. Emphasise words and its meaning.
Knowledge is co-created between the researcher and the researched. People and their narrative are important.
As for subjective-objective, take for example if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? In reality, it does, but without the human perception of sound, there is no sound, what is sound? Perception is our five senses, cognition is processing these signals for instance sound to conclude something falling. Subjectivist say without our own perception and cognition sound is not sound. Objectivist says no sound is sound does not matter of our own perception and cognition.
Saying all the above, in the ontological lenses of what is existence and the epistemological position of how do we gain knowledge by measuring independent of our beliefs or by constructing and interpreting it by our perceptions and cognition subjectively depending on many factors, our education, age, intelligence, capacity.
If you think too deep you will question everything. There are positions that take from both sides. Which I personally believe in. Depending on the context I can lean a bit towards each side. Somethings can be studied objectively, somethings must be studied subjectively.
While others depend on both our perception and cognition, beliefs and the objective realities outside of us.
"Campbell (2002) argued that “all scientists are epistemological constructivists and relativists” in the sense that they believe that both the ontological world and the worlds of ideology, values, etc. play a role in the construction of scientific knowledge (p. 29). Conversely, Schwandt, in his SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (2007), stated that on a daily basis, most of us probably behave as garden-variety empirical realists—that is, we act as if the objects in the world (things, events, structures, people, meanings, etc.) exist as independent in some way from our experience with them. We also regard society, institutions, feelings, intelligence, poverty, disability, and so on as being just as real as the toes on our feet and the sun in the sky. (p. 256)". A realist stance to qualitative research.
Why I take this perspective because I know that reality is not only based on subjective experience but also objective.
This excerpt will explain more. " Like most of us, I assume that there is a real-world out there—but that our representations of that world are constructions. People create and apply these constructions in a struggle to grasp the world, relate to it, and manipulate it through concepts, knowledge, and acts. In the process, reality impinges; and the events that occur consequently are not predicated on the cultural system of representations employed by the people, although they may largely be interpretable within it. A people’s way of life is thus not a closed system, contained within their own cultural constructions. That part of the real world on which we as anthropologists need to focus is composed of this widest compass: a natural world, a human population with all its collective and statistical social features, and a set of cultural ideas in terms of which these people try to understand and cope with themselves and their habitat. (p. 87)".
Finally, what is out there depends on how we perceive it, however that does not change the fact that it is out there. Whether I see a tree as a symbol of life or a chair that is subjective to my perception and cognition, yet it's presence is undeniable.
The term “epistemology” comes from the Greek words “episteme” and “logos”. “Episteme” can be translated as “knowledge” or “understanding” or “acquaintance”, while “logos” can be translated as “account” or “argument” or “reason”. Just as each of these different translations captures some facet of the meaning of these Greek terms, so too does each translation capture a different facet of epistemology itself. Although the term “epistemology” is no more than a couple of centuries old, the field of epistemology is at least as old as any in philosophy.[1] In different parts of its extensive history, different facets of epistemology have attracted attention. Plato’s epistemology was an attempt to understand what it was to know, and how knowledge (unlike mere true opinion) is good for the knower. Locke’s epistemology was an attempt to understand the operations of human understanding, Kant’s epistemology was an attempt to understand the conditions of the possibility of human understanding, and Russell’s epistemology was an attempt to understand how modern science could be justified by appeal to sensory experience. Much recent work in formal epistemology is an attempt to understand how our degrees of confidence are rationally constrained by our evidence, and much recent work in feminist epistemology is an attempt to understand the ways in which interests affect our evidence, and affect our rational constraints more generally. In all these cases, epistemology seeks to understand one or another kind of cognitive success (or, correspondingly, cognitive failure). This entry surveys the varieties of cognitive success, and some recent efforts to understand some of those varieties.
I recommend Lee Braver's book,
A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism.
My understanding of ontology is about what exists around us and epistemology questions how these came into being of course through senses, perceptions, observations, etc.
Epistemology is how we come to KNOW _(as opposed to believe) with good specified perspectives _and methods, leading to validity: _discovering worthwhile "things" and relating things in the real world (dependent on the domain; e.g. biology would be one grand domain, including decent, well-based and true-grounded behavioral science -- with ALL concepts ultimately founded, but clearly so, IN overt OBSERVABLES (that is empiricism)).
Basically: Ontology is supposed to be the ultimate "ingredients" of reality ("nature-of-'being'" type of "stuff").
Ontology is metaphysics, so it is really nothing one must worry about. It is of philosophers and not of science. It supposedly is " a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them " -- but that is EXACTLY what you would find with good epistemology. So, anything maybe good about this word would be covered by epistemology; the rest is highly presumptuous or superstitious nonsense (as is all metaphysics) -- "off the track".
[ Evaluate things for yourself; I will never, and like others, should never ever just "spout off" 'definitions' -- i.e. what one was "taught", so often really being just "stuff" MEMORIZED (dead ends). The way I describe is living (actual) existentialism. ]
P.S. Dear Zaid Amin the is NO "what we know" without HOW we know.
Tom Fryer recently provided a short and easy (access-free) guide to ontology and epistemology: https://bit.ly/33lXU5g
I will explain ontology as a sort of thing that exists in the social world and assumptions about the form and nature of that social reality. As compared to speaking about Epistemology, it is concerned with the nature of knowledge and ways of knowing and learning about social reality.
I hope this open-access (and short!) guide to ontology and epistemology helps: http://tinyurl.com/y3sz3ut9
There are lots of great answers above, but here's a silly way to remember the difference:
- Ontology sounds like ‘on toe logy’, or the study of what you just dropped on your toe. Now, if you just dropped a hammer on your toe, I guarantee you’re going to be thinking about reality. You’re going to be thinking about real hammers and real pain, in the real world. There’s no way you’re going to be in the mind-frame to ask: “How do I produce knowledge about this hammer?” You’ll be pretty focused on its reality. That’s ontology.
- Epistemology sounds a bit like ‘epic stem ology’, or the study of epic stems. Imagine your mate, who is a plant scientist, comes up to you and says: “Hey buddy, look at the epic stem on this plant, how cool”. I’m guessing your first reaction will be: Is that really an epic stem? How does Dave know that’s an epic stem? Why does Dave have some right weird opinions? You can see these are all questions about knowledge, ie epistemology.
Ontology is branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
A set of concepts and categories in a domain shows their properties and the relations between them.
Ontology is Being existing, epistemology is the abstract though what the abstract is explained, learning through.
Epistemology seeks to understand knowledge whereas ontology is concerned with the nature and properties of the state of being or existing. Episteme is Greek meaning knowledge and ology, a subject of study.
epistem. has to do with the nature of knowledge and ways of knowing, whereas ontology deals with existence, being and becoming.
Since ontology and epistemology are inextricably linked, it is evidently difficult to "put on and take off" these research foundations however the research desires. This illustrates the analytical implications of multiple positions and suggests that researchers need a variety of positions in order to account for their chosen approach. However, in terms of the interrelationship between epistemology and methodology, ontological positions are very important, and it may be said that such ontological positions lead to epistemological positions. The foundationalist's values (ontology) serve as a basis for positivist or realist science traditions (epistemology), while the anti-opinions foundationalist's lead to an interpretivist role. This means that all aspects of science are inextricably linked, making it critical to approach these main research blocks as a whole.
Ontology is how the researcher believes about the world. this is meant as how he/she think about his phenomenon to be explored. So, Ontology is about how researchers estimate their subjects/ data. once Ontology is determined, the researcher moves to, how, then he/she create knowledge on... So, he can take a design to explore the problem.
Example:
Ontology - Belief that there is one truth waiting to be captured.
Epistemology - In order to capture that truth, the researcher maintain a detached stance.
Ontology - Belief that there are multiple truths which are subject to change.
Epistemology - The researcher can be involved in the process of capturing different truths.
Ontology deals with what kinds of things exist. Epistemology deals with what we can know and how we can know it (the means and conditions for knowledge), including how we can know what exists. Read this article.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504903.pdf
Tom Fryer
Not that everybody is necessitated to become a realist . ... I myself am an epistemologist AND an idealist Ontologist . . .