I am hoping for some guidance and additional reading material that will assist me in determining ontological and epistemological stance when not explicitly detailed within the research.
Here is an example paper I'm working with:
https://core.ac.uk/reader/8778952?utm_source=linkout
Would I be correct in assuming that this is an example of thematic analysis employing a critical realist ontology and a constructionist epistemology? I'm new to philosophy and qualitative research is not my strong point so I'm worried that I'm way off base here.
Any further guidance is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I'd rather narrow down each study/paper to the very basic questions around ontology, epistemology, and methodology - i.e., does the study believe there *is* a reality? If yes, is reality knowable in a discrete, objective way?
If both yes, you're dealing with positivists.
If both no, you're dealing with constructivists.
If the first is yes, and the second is no (due to people's subjective background, including the researchers'), you're dealing with critical realists.
If they don't even bother questioning whether reality exists and can be known, but rather dive deep into methodology straight away, you're most likely dealing with pragmatists.
I'd rather narrow down each study/paper to the very basic questions around ontology, epistemology, and methodology - i.e., does the study believe there *is* a reality? If yes, is reality knowable in a discrete, objective way?
If both yes, you're dealing with positivists.
If both no, you're dealing with constructivists.
If the first is yes, and the second is no (due to people's subjective background, including the researchers'), you're dealing with critical realists.
If they don't even bother questioning whether reality exists and can be known, but rather dive deep into methodology straight away, you're most likely dealing with pragmatists.
When the primary investigators/authors do not take a stance, that is noteworthy. Keep track of the articles that omit that to justify why it is important in your work that you DO take a stance. Not taking a stance = a gap in the literature. BTW, this paper by Clotworthy et al. looks like a paper that has not been peer-reviewed. Your literature review should contain recent peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Hi,
I can suggest you examine the chapter below for a critical realist ontology:
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665525.001.0001/acprof-9780199665525-chapter-1
To make the work of colleagues who propose results and ways of introducing it official
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy