Dear Dean and Ilona, hello again. I would like to clarify the meaning of my phrase "make no sense or useless". I mean that many researchers find it difficult or boring to state the epistemological position from where they stand and they use. They take it for granted that every literate reader as Johannes states, is aware of certain epistemological and ontological beliefs (however this mainly holds true for quantitative research).

So they do not find it necessary to state it. The controversial issue here is whether somebody has to refer to onto- and epistem- and why. I agree with Dean that quantitative and qualitative research, philosophically are poles apart. In my view this means first, that a qualtitative researcher has to refer to epistem- however, the grade in which he is going to extend it in a text depends on the type of the text. In a qualitative or mixed methods research a quite extensive (maybe a whole chapter) reference may be essential but in a scientific journal a large paragraph should be sufficient. The purpose in both cases is to rely on a vast theoretical background. Based on the fact that quantitative research methods are far more established, yes, I tend to agree a relative statement about pragmatic research could annoy readers especially the experienced ones. A brief reference could be enough in that case. However, in a qualitative research which still lacks of empirical evidence because of limitations related to generalization and reliability (see Johannes' opinion) stating epistemology helps readers to expect from a qualitative study something else and innovative, namely, more depth and investigation related to "how" and "what" questions and not "how much" or "how many" or "which is the grade of correlations among variables". Pragmatic research has is not a sole perspective, phenomenology for example could also explain adequately phenomenons related to personal experience especially of special groups (e.g. experience of counselors working with graduate students form different cultures, nurses experience working with people suffering from chronic diseases etc.). So, stating epistemology could help readers identify the need of a qualitative research like the ones above and explain that the main goal is not always exploring generalization and reliability but the ways and mechanisms experience and ideas generate from. In sum, scopes are different because qual and quan approaches are different. However, both contribute to the development of our knowledge base as scientists. Creswell' s (2009) book is a good reading which gives answers to lots of questions as the one posted by Ilona.

Ilona - I would argue that it may well be important - but word constraints, in particular, mitigate against it. Instead, I think that the priority is a clear description and justification of related methodology and how that impacts the methods section. Of course, if it were a dissertation or thesis that we were talking about, instead of a journal article, then you would expect to see ontological and epistemological positions (where they are applicable) to be clearly stated in detail.

Ilona hello. Stating the epistemological and ontological position shows where you stand as a researcher and it is something very important for some authors while for others is not necessary . In my view it is an important issue in a study or an article written in a scientific journal which should definitely be stated as part of the method section. In fact, it reveals the philosophy a researcher follows when collecting, analyzing and interpeting qualitative data by interviews, observation, diaries etc. This helps the readers to identify "why" the study was conducted applying a set of specific techniques and also introduces the reader to "what" has to expect from the scientific approach used in the study. Furthermore, this section refers to the method somebody uses of looking for the truth; a general world view, so stating it explains why using a particular qualitative research method is supposed to be more appropriate than someone else in order to investigate a specific problem. Epistemology is many times stated by qualitative researchers because it fosters the value and the impact of qualitative studies.

The ones who do not refer to epistemological or ontological principles and points either lack knowledge about these terms or prefer to avoid stating them because this would cover too much space in a journal. Another reason for this is that many researchers assume that stating epistemology points does not make sense and it is useless.

I agree that space is an issue. However, does stating, for example "Our ontological position was Heidegger's lived experience and our epistemological positon was the internal relation (ref)" take too much space? Doesn't the use of established references reduce the need for more then a sentence or two? Surely, this could work for many?

Ilona - I think that your example helps illustrate what perhaps Andronikos is referring to when a stated theoretical/philosophical position 'does not make sense and it is useless'. Your example is far too brief to rationalise and justify a paradigm position. As I said earlier, it would take the good part of a thesis chapter to achieve this. A mere sentence in an article could be seen as 'throw-away' or meaningless.

Andronikos is NOT stating "a stated theoretical/philosophical position 'does not make sense and it is useless". He stated that "many researchers ASSUME that etc [my emphasis]". His main argument is that it is worth stating the onto- and epistem-.

Also, "it reveals the philosophy a researcher follows when collecting, analyzing and interpeting qualitative data by interviews, observation, diaries etc.", which I agree with. That my example is "too brief to rationalise and justify a paradigm position" is an indication of familarity with the literature. (Yes, I ddin't bother to find the internal relation ref). When a quant researcher can state "The XYZ method was used to ABC." It is assumed that everyone that doesn't know XYZ method has to do the work to find out what it is because it is a well established method. An onto- and epistem- position, unless the work of the author/researcher is also likely to be well documented elsewhere and supplying refs should be enough for readers to either recognise the work and therefore the researcher's position. That revelation of the philosophy a resarcher has adopted strenghthens the report. Arguments against the work have to also come from the same philosophical position.

Ilona - best not to speak for other people - and also best not to 'shout' at people when they are offering opinions and experienced advice. If you want to post questions and invite discourse - best to be measured and balanced. Andronikos's response may well be positive, and I do not dispute that, but I still dispute that a single sentence can rationalize a qualitative perspective - especially from both an ontological and an epistemological position. It is also naive to suggest that if a quantitative approach can be rationalized in one sentence - then so can a qualitative approach. Philosophically, they are poles apart.

well I would say for a great bulk of very applied and pragmatic research fundamental epistemological argumentation will just annoy the reader. I also get annoyed by lengthy philosophical statements when what I want is empirical and applied. A short statement referring to epistemology must suffice in such work. It should be clear to every literate reader that published work is based on certain epistemological and ontological premises no matter what discipline.

Dear Dean and Ilona, hello again. I would like to clarify the meaning of my phrase "make no sense or useless". I mean that many researchers find it difficult or boring to state the epistemological position from where they stand and they use. They take it for granted that every literate reader as Johannes states, is aware of certain epistemological and ontological beliefs (however this mainly holds true for quantitative research).

So they do not find it necessary to state it. The controversial issue here is whether somebody has to refer to onto- and epistem- and why. I agree with Dean that quantitative and qualitative research, philosophically are poles apart. In my view this means first, that a qualtitative researcher has to refer to epistem- however, the grade in which he is going to extend it in a text depends on the type of the text. In a qualitative or mixed methods research a quite extensive (maybe a whole chapter) reference may be essential but in a scientific journal a large paragraph should be sufficient. The purpose in both cases is to rely on a vast theoretical background. Based on the fact that quantitative research methods are far more established, yes, I tend to agree a relative statement about pragmatic research could annoy readers especially the experienced ones. A brief reference could be enough in that case. However, in a qualitative research which still lacks of empirical evidence because of limitations related to generalization and reliability (see Johannes' opinion) stating epistemology helps readers to expect from a qualitative study something else and innovative, namely, more depth and investigation related to "how" and "what" questions and not "how much" or "how many" or "which is the grade of correlations among variables". Pragmatic research has is not a sole perspective, phenomenology for example could also explain adequately phenomenons related to personal experience especially of special groups (e.g. experience of counselors working with graduate students form different cultures, nurses experience working with people suffering from chronic diseases etc.). So, stating epistemology could help readers identify the need of a qualitative research like the ones above and explain that the main goal is not always exploring generalization and reliability but the ways and mechanisms experience and ideas generate from. In sum, scopes are different because qual and quan approaches are different. However, both contribute to the development of our knowledge base as scientists. Creswell' s (2009) book is a good reading which gives answers to lots of questions as the one posted by Ilona.

Very good recent posts. The consensus seems to be that people tend to know the underlying positions - or they do not. I would argue that, if they do, there is no need for any mention of it - particularly a one sentence worldview. The same with quantitative studies. If the context or methodology is 'new' to the journal then an elaborate explanation is required - but how many people submit qualitative research to journals where the target audience know nothing about it?

To add to some of the useful contributions previously made, I think that there may be several cases where it would make sense to avoid elaborate epistemological/ontological positioning. One example is when writing for a journal or a special issue that is already clearly situated in a certain tradition. I suggest that each case should be judged on its own merit, bearing the needs and knowledge of the readership in mind; and that the tendency, in some answers above, to offer blanket advice may be unhelpful.

I would also like to question whether the 'methods' section would be the most appropriate place to state one's foundational assumptions. There may well be disciplinary differences at work here, but when reading a 'methods' section, I expect to find only the information that would allow me to replicate the study. I think that conceptual work and references to ontological and epistemological frameworks, if necessary, and similar conceptual information would be more suitably placed in the Literature Review.

Achilleas - a good and measured response. I agree - if I'm submitting to Qualitative Health Research, I would make an assumption that reviewers and readers will already have insight without it needing to be stated. Also - agreed it shouldn't be in the methods section - but I would expect it, where needed, in a preceding methodology section. Therein lies another issue. Many use the term methods and methodology interchangeably - and that is incorrect.

Another thing to add to the equation is that, in my clinical field over the last 5-years or more, the most common qualitative approach is that of 'descriptive, exploratory' (free-form). For many, they choose it because it is the 'easiest' qualitative approach to adopt - but, for others, they rationally adopt it because it does not 'tie them down' to a rigid ontological or epistemological position.

One important aspect to consider in academic writings is that they are written for a wide spectrum of readers who may not be specialised in a given field where certain things are taken for granted, but nevertheless they may want to read something that they can understand. Therefore, my take is that, stating one's ontological commitment and epistemological posture tend to add further clarity to a given publication while also increasing its readership. Though I agree that if the academic work is destined to a very narrow cohort of academics who operate in the same paradigm, it may not be necessary (although this is rarely the case).

I think the question that Llona asked is very important for many fields. My field is Education Policy and in my research about Epistemological trends in Education Policy research just few researchers make explicit epistemological perspectives and epistemological positionaning, We have written some papers about this.

I am a PHD student and am keen to follow the debate because I am reading on the same subject and attemtping to place my study in  its philosophical foundation. Thanks for the feedback. Its helpful for a student.

THis is quite an interesting discussion. I am a Master's degree candidate for English Teaching and at the moment I am trying to define the ontological and epistemological positioning of my research and have read in several of the comments posted in this question and in some other I have read on this issue have cleared lots of things I could not address, however there seems to be a position that is not clear or very common among all the different replies I have read.

In any case from what I have taken, it seems kind of clear to me that both ontological and epistemological positionings are not mandatory to be stated on the paper you are writing but it would depend on the journal you are writing to as well as to the audience you are writing too (both are not excluding).

I am in the same path David Estrella and I am working on Applied Research now

Dean, I notice that I no longer have to use all caps to emphasise text. Caps are not always about shouting, sometimes they are used because no other form of emphasis is available, Therefore, emphasising not shouting intended.

I think that the positivist, dualist position of most quantitative research is taken for granted and that student researchers benefit from exploring and stating what they understand their onto- and epistem- positions to be in their theses.

I agree a special issue where the onto- and epi- issue is already stated requires no further work by authors. Unless of course the author is contesting the position.

Yes, new methods evolve and I think it is in the interests of all to try to pbulish in new places to broaden the readership/users of a method.

Thank you Dean. The interchangeable use of method and methodology has perhaps contributed to the lack of onto- and epi- statements. I think we could benefit from not letting our language evolve to allow methodology to mean method. If one uses methodology to mean method, what word would one use to mean methodology?

The separation of a methodology section from method section is something I would recommend too.

Is there much exposure to onto- and epi- philosophy in the worlds of the contributors to this thread? Have any had courses or had supervisors/colleagues recommended readings on onto- and epi- related to the research method? Do any recommend onto- and epi- readings to their students?

Ontology is a topic that you're researching; you break it down to taxonomy What causes cancer, then through your epistemology stand you will show how you arrive at the knowledge of finding what causes cancer. You can use both concepts for quantitative research and qualitative research. I'm not an expert, but everyone has a unique way understanding elaborate philosophical stand.