We need to draw a clear line between ontology and epistemology. Ontology regards the existence of facts and objects, while epistemology regards whether we can know them or not, and if objectively or subjectively.

Ontologically, either you're a realist or an anti-realist. Either you accept facts are real independently of the "human mind" (realist), i.e. objective, or you accept that reality is only subjective (anti-realist). Ontological theories are based on either one or the other. In ontology, relativism, as you can infer, is the skeptic's favorite approach to anti-realism.

Constructivism, on the other hand, is an epistemological position. I am not aware of mr. Crotty's take, but constructivism can either be realist or anti-realist. Realist in that, e.g., we have a biologically limited manner to understand reality and we gradually know more and more as we research, and anti-realist in that, e.g., we build our own reality based on our individual experiences. There are a great deal of variations, but scientific constructivism as proposed by Kuhn (Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", 1962 is a must-read if you intend to verse regarding this subject) is a realist approach in that understanding of reality is a cooperative endeavour through paradigm shifts as scientifical revolutions.

But epistemology is a vast field, and there are a great deal of theories regarding each of the aforementioned positions.

Realism and relativism are undoubtedly the two most commonly used ontological positions. To get some background on these two positions, I would start with the Wikipedia entries on: Naive Realism, Scientific Realism, and Relativism.

As for where Constructionism fits into this system, most people would consider it a form of relativism. In the social sciences, it is often contrasted with Post-Positivism as a form of realism.

I'm not all that familiar with Crotty, but I know that he identified with pragmatism (e.g., William James and John Dewey), which generally takes an agnostic view towards ontological issues. In particular, rather than worrying about the existence of a "real world" that exists outside of human experience, the pragmatists focus on a world of actions and consequences -- where the key question would be what difference it makes to act one way rather than another.

An ontological position refers to the researcher relationship with the reality of his study. For example, whether, he / considers reality to be independent of his knowledge, or whether he particpates in the construction of that reality.

There are four basic philosophies of science: Logical positivism, Relativism, pragmatism and realism. Ontologically speaking, realism and logical positivism both view reality as objective, i.e. independent of our cognition; while pragmatism and relativism regard reality as subjective, though their ontologicla positions are somewhat different. Pragmatism considers that reality places constraints on human action, while in relativism, reality is socially constructed.

Realist ontology is objective

Realist epistemology is subjectivist

Relativist ontology is subjective

Relativist epistemology is subjective

We need to draw a clear line between ontology and epistemology. Ontology regards the existence of facts and objects, while epistemology regards whether we can know them or not, and if objectively or subjectively.

Ontologically, either you're a realist or an anti-realist. Either you accept facts are real independently of the "human mind" (realist), i.e. objective, or you accept that reality is only subjective (anti-realist). Ontological theories are based on either one or the other. In ontology, relativism, as you can infer, is the skeptic's favorite approach to anti-realism.

Constructivism, on the other hand, is an epistemological position. I am not aware of mr. Crotty's take, but constructivism can either be realist or anti-realist. Realist in that, e.g., we have a biologically limited manner to understand reality and we gradually know more and more as we research, and anti-realist in that, e.g., we build our own reality based on our individual experiences. There are a great deal of variations, but scientific constructivism as proposed by Kuhn (Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", 1962 is a must-read if you intend to verse regarding this subject) is a realist approach in that understanding of reality is a cooperative endeavour through paradigm shifts as scientifical revolutions.

But epistemology is a vast field, and there are a great deal of theories regarding each of the aforementioned positions.

Luca Ignasi makes a very good point, and it fits with a little more reading I did on Crotty. He apparently feels that ontological positions don't matter so long as you have a clear epistemological position, which in his case would be strongly anti-realist.

In other words, if all knowledge is subjectively constructed, then the "true" nature of reality doesn't matter, because we can never get outside our socially based constructions.

Another variation on this position are known as Critical Realism, which accepts a realist ontology, but pairs that with an anti-realist epistemology.

A good source to read about this from a philosopher are the early chapters in Ian Hacking's collection of essays, "The Social Construction of What?"

Worth reading is Roy Bhaskar's critical realism offering a relatively new ontological position that argues for a stratified reality.

I found this blog very helpful

http://www.stmorgan.co.uk/epistemology-and-ontology.html

This was an excellent discussion, thank you all.

Excellent

thank you all

very ueful thread. thank you

Excellent! Thank you all.

Hi all, I'm so delighted to have read your different educative contributions to the above philosophical topic on: Ontology and Epistemology.

As a proponent of "Triangulation" or "Crystallisation" Approach to Research, I was wondering if we could please, extend our narrative to shed some more light on the Philosophy of "Pragmatism"

In general, pragmatism proposes a totally different approach to philosophy of knowledge that rejects the value of versions that rely on ontology and epistemology. Thus, rather than asking questions about the nature of truth, it would concentrate on what difference it makes to act one way rather than another.

I have an article on this topic that you can find here on RG:

Article Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research

@David L Morgan, Many thanks Sir for your insightful and yet simplistic explanation.

I think foundationalism/Objectivism/realism can be considered as broader ontological positions. According to Marsh and Furlong all these terms share similar connotations. It deals with one singe truth. As Salman patel indicated this approach commonly follow the quantitative research methods.

What an interesting thread.

Thank you all for these interesting discussion. I'm still struggling with the different paradigms, approaches, designs etc. Going back to the discussion, what is an subjectivist ontology with an inductive epistemology. Is this crotty? Anti-realist?

really helpful

Interesting, lots of thanks.

The main ontological positions are Materialism and Idealism. Anyway, realism and Materialism seem to be on the same path because they all believe that the object or matter precedes thinking or consciousness and that there's an objective reality out there. Relativism isn't mainly an ontological position but its drawn from Idealism where the thinking precedes the object and reality is as a result of our constructions and interpretations. This makes reality relative.