Interesting

Essentially, Epistemology answers questions around the "rules" of knowledge. The "How do we know" type questions.

From there. Epistemologies give rise to Methodologies (How do these methods produce valid knowledge?") and then to actual Methods. (Which particular method are you using to create knowledge?)

The classic statement of Epistemology is Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Descartes stated from a skeptical positions, and said the only thing I can know for sure is that I exist because I can think.

Constructivism says that all human knowledge is a social contruct and we can not know anything outside the world that our societies have constructed - the mental pictures we carry - of our world. This is entirely related to Ontology (the question What exists in our world?) The things that we take to exist in our world are constructed by us in our social contexts. Gods, tables, computers, angels, motorcycles. Not all people accept an Ontology that includes Gods, or Angels.

This then turns back on Epistemologies, as Descartes said "God made me a thinking being, and therefore I can know" - a basic Epistemological statement.

According to Guba and Lincoln (1994), as well as many others, constructivism is a paradigm that promotes unique ontological and epistemological alignment. The ontology of constructivism, for example, is often referred to as relativism, or the idea that reality is made up of "multiple, tangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature... and dependent for their form and context on the individual persons or groups holding the constructions" (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 110-111). On the other hand, we must ask how a constructivist would come to know those multiple realities, i.e., the epistemology of constructivism. In this sense, most constructivists would align with a subjective epistemology in which "knowledge is symbolically constructed and not objective" (Hatch, 1985, p. 161). So, to answer your question, I would argue that constructivism is a paradigm which affords particular ontological and epistemological beliefs.

What we are discussing comes under the concept of Worldview. Worldviews are essentially contain an Ontology, an Epistemology and an Axiology.

We each have our own Worldview, which is learnt from childhood - and is socially constructed. A Worldview which contains the idea that it is not socially constructed seems quite strange to me, and is basically unimaginable within my own constructed Worldview.

Worldview is an idea developed from Kant (Weltanschuaang). If you are interested in this concept, have a look at Sire's "The Universe Next Door" and "The Elephant in the Room". Both books give about eight or nine questions to start to identify the important elements of a specific Worldview. Look as well at Naugle's Worldview: The History of a Concept.

In a Worldview context, the categories (for wont of a better word) are intertwined. As Martin Böhnert says, it is difficult and complex.

So, Sire says the first two questions are Epistemological (how do we now) and Ontological (what exists in our world) - but not necessarily in that order.

A religious Worldview is based on the existence of God/gods (or some sort of spiritual beings and realm). So Ontological is the first question. Descartes starts from this perspective and answers the Epistemological question How do we know? by saying 'God made me a knowing being'. So the Epistemology is intertwined with the Ontology.

Clearly, within most religious Worldviews the Axiology is handed out by the creator/divine beings, so the Axiology is intertwined within the Worldview with the Ontology and Epistemology.

Atheistic Worldviews (sometimes called Nihilistic) starts with the Epistemological question How do we know? Ontology is the second question. And without a God or Gods to point to, the Epistemological question is difficult to answer, and the discussion quickly reaches radical scepticism - i.e., the links between any real world and our conceptions of such a world cannot be made ... (So when people say I am wrong - it is largely because we do not share the same Worldview - but that is a very high level excuse and I rarely make it in any academic forum).

Reid says "I would argue that constructivism is a paradigm which affords particular ontological and epistemological beliefs. "

Exactly - Constructivism itself has a Worldview - but do not confuse 'paradigm' with 'Worldview'.

So Leyli, my basic answers to your questions " whether constructivism relates to ontological or epistemological theorizing? As an option, might it be combined type of theory?"

Yes - the combined theory is around, and found in, Worldviews, and there are three works I mentioned above that do exactly that.

"leaving epistemological issues aside and by focusing on ontology"

This probably cannot be done. Epistemologies and Ontologies are intertwined. They are reliant on each other for their coherency (or lack of coherency).

The only reason I say 'probably' is that I am unfamiliar with Wiener's work - but I might be able to mount an argument from Phenomenology (Heidegger rather than Husserl) to make such a statement, and I would move into its child Existentialism, probably the work of Merleau-Ponty or maybe Jaspers.

American Pragmatism would also be a starting point to ignore Epistemological issues, but to do so always ends in radical scepticism. I think the main reason people ignore Epistemology is because, without a God, there is no definitive answer - only debate and discussion.

The other reason to ignore Epistemology (except for philosophers) is that such questions tell us very little about the word we live in.

"I also bit confused whether empirical research relates to ontology, while normative research relates to epistemology."

I'm not surprised. I find the distinctions between them to be artificial. 'Empirical research' claims of objectivity and investigating any real world are false. Like 'Normative research', empirical research is also based on a point of view - based in a Worldview. Empirical science has its own Worldview.

Statistical research is conducted within a Worldview - a view that says they things we are counting are real things that are different from other real things. But it is our socially constructed Worldview, specifically the Ontology, that makes those distinctions. Other, equally valid, other groups of 'real things' can be easily made and counted.

I live and work across cultures, and between Worldviews. The things that exist in one Worldview/Ontology do not exist in the other Worldview/Ontology (such as Demons, Angels, Souls - these are the most obvious examples of things that may not exist within the Worldviews of the people reading this).

My take on Leyli's question is that epistemology concerns the foundations of valid ('scientific') knowledge. Constructivism has sought to provide one such foundation for the scientific study of the social world. In this sense, I would say that constructivism is an epistemology (and, a dated one at that).

On the other hand, ontology may have not necessarily to do with science. One should also keep in mind that, while the term 'ontology' dates from the 17th century, the issue of ontology is definitely much older than that of epistemology (the latter being an essentially modern concern with the philosophy of Western modern science).

It is certainly true that, as observed by previous contributors, different philosophies offer different ontologies. However, my general impression is that each one philosophy offers but one ontology (its own). It should be consequential that, once we place ourselves within one philosophical approach, school, tradition or system, it is only possible to talk about ontology in the singular.

In the Greek tradition of Parmenides of Elea, for instance, ontology is an essential extremely 'poor' – or, if one wishes, 'pure' – discourse: "It is necessary to speak and to think what is; for being is, but nothing is not". One is tempted to advance the hypothesis that there is a profound monism inscribed into the Western ontological tradition (at least, this one).

El campo de la filosofía del conocimiento la ontología se encarga de la delimitación y comprobación de que el ser o algún ser "es", es decir que no se trata de una ilusión, invención o alucinación; en tanto que la epistemología se enfoca en la forma de como entendemos, explicamos o estudiamos ese ser. Pasando ahora al constructivismo, existen dos situaciones: la primera se trata de la vanguardia artística rusa de principios del siglo XX más ligada al campo filosófico de la estética que al del conocimiento; el otro campo donde se aplica el termimo constructivismo es en el de la psicología, en donde se trata de una teoría que explicativa los procesos de aprendizaje y en este caso ésta teoría es una postura epistemológica.

Ontology is about the nature of existence and epistemology is about the nature of knowledge. So I believe that constructivism aligns with epistemology because constructivism is about the ways of "constructing" knowledge.

I Agree With Reid Evans

I concord with Reid Evans.