Introduction to the session

Ontology and epistemologyResearch Student Generic Skills Training Programme, College of Social Sciences, November 2012Jo Brewis, School of Managementj.brewis@le.ac.uk

Introduction to the session What today will hopefully assist you to do: • understand the various philosophical ‘continuums’ at work in social science research • outline the key choices involved in research design as a result • explore the links between philosophical choices and research practice Today will also overlap with and provide a foundation for Dr. Taysum’s session next May Today will not provide a detailed and in-depth examination of all the various philosophical standpoints in social science 

Why do I need to know this stuff? Pluralism in the social sciences: • subcultures and deviance • migration • poverty • the cost of living • educational engagement • vulnerable students • civil security • online and offline identities • democratization • humanitarian intervention • well-being • social inclusion and exclusion • Corporate Social Responsibility • brands and branding … etc. …

Why do I need to know this stuff? To identify your position within this contested terrain To be able to articulate the nature, purpose and status of your project and the conclusions it will produce To be able to present a cogent, considered and justified methodology in your thesis, and to have it considered on its own merits “Understanding different traditions of scholarship can help researchers identify the match between their own intellectual preferences and a particular mode of inquiry so that they can develop a research style that is personally meaningful and simultaneously meets the standards of a wider academic community.” (Prasad, 2005: 8)

So what’s all this about the philosophy of social science then? Key philosophical question: to what extent, if any, can or should the study of ‘society’ be scientific? is society the same kind of object as the natural world? is society governed by laws equivalent to the laws that govern events in the natural world? what does it mean to have knowledge about society? is knowledge of society equivalent to knowledge of the natural world? is knowledge of society objective? what is the goal of the study of society? how should we acquire knowledge of society?

So what’s all this about the philosophy of social science then? First order questions (RQs) – eg, what kind of experiences have forty-something female professionals had of intimate relationships and motherhood in the last decade or so? Second order questions (philosophy of SS) – how should we study these experiences? The issues at stake here are ontological, epistemological and methodological What do these terms mean?

So what’s all this about the philosophy of social science then? Ontology: the question of “what reality is like, the basic elements it contains” (Silverman, 2010: 109) Epistemology: “study of the criteria by which we can know what does and does not constitute warranted, or scientific, knowledge” (Johnson and Duberley, 2000: 2-3) Methodology: theories of gathering knowledge, how we can know what we are able to know Now back to slide number 5 …

So what’s all this about the philosophy of social science then? To summarize, “[t]he way we think the world is (ontology) influences: what we think can be known about it (epistemology); how we think it can be investigated (methodology and research techniques); the kinds of theories we think can be constructed about it; and the political and policy stances we are prepared to take” (Fleetwood, 2005: 197) Plus, the ‘if it looks like a duck’ adage And a quick health warning before we proceed

The philosophical ‘continuums’ Continuum number 1 From realism and unification of method/ monism/ scientism And objectivism: “truth is defined as the accurate representation of an independently existing reality. The accumulation of knowledge is thereby considered to be the accumulation of accurate representations of what is (independently) outside of us.” (Smith and Hodkinson, 2005: 916) And an emphasis on quantities/ preoccupation with measurement, whichmay necessitate operationalization … often bracketed together under the catch-all positivism …

The philosophical ‘continuums’ To idealism/ constructionism: “the assumptions guiding positivism derive from the study of largely inanimate or biological phenomena that lack the capacity for self-reflection and cultural production. By contrast the social sciences are inevitably concerned with social, economic and cultural worlds that are constituted by the human capacity for meaningful understanding and action.” (Prasad, 2005: 5) Things behave, people experience (Laing, cited in Johnson and Duberley, 2000: 34) The Thomas (1966) theorem: “if we believe something to be real, it is real enough in its consequences for we behave as if it does exist” (Smith, 1998: 161)

The philosophical ‘continuums’ “consensual beliefs and concerted practices give rise to objective social institutions. Accordingly, institutional facts like the value of currency or the price of shares on a stock exchange depend upon collective actions that presuppose the objectivity of those facts. These socially constructed facts are real, in the sense that they are intersubjective, exist independently of the observer, and persist in time, but their reality depends upon, and is continually sustained by, reflexive subscription to that very reality.” (Lynch, 2000: 29) Also, when/ how does someone die? JFK, suicide statistics (Douglas, 1967), DNR orders, living wills, assisted suicide/ euthanasia etc. And crime statistics (Kitsuse and Cicourel, 1963)

The philosophical ‘continuums’ And subjectivism/ interpretivism: “Something called subjectivity could be demonstrated in all research programmes … One’s own life history, belongingness to a specific research community, and everyday experience inform how one thinks and acts in relationship to the subject matter. These have an impact on the questions asked, the language used and, by implication, the results produced … Questions of determining which problems to study, the relevancy of findings, and the translation back to the subject’s world have always posed constitutive and value-laden issues at the very heart of any ‘objective’ research that intends to have a social effect.” (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000: 63, 65-66)

The philosophical ‘continuums’ Which is linked to Weberian value relevance And the general belief that social science is different from natural science So we need to emphasize qualities, using “an array of interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world” (Van Maanen, cited in Alvesson and Deetz, 2000: 70)

The philosophical ‘continuums’ Continuum number 2 From explanation And deductivism: “Deductive research starts with existing theories and concepts and formulates hypotheses that are subsequently tested; its vantage point is received theory.” (Gummesson, 2000: 63) And generalization (Aristotle’s episteme)/ external validity To exploration

The philosophical ‘continuums’ And inductivism: “Inductive research starts with real-world data, and categories, concepts, patterns, models, and eventually, theories emerge from this input.” (Gummesson, 2000: 63) And reluctance to generalize (Aristotle’s techne)/ transferability Continuum number 3 From fixed and ‘artificial’ research design

The philosophical ‘continuums’ To flexible and ‘natural’ research design: “Once one relaxes the ontological assumption that the world is a concrete structure, and admits that human beings, far from merely responding to the social world, may actively contribute to its creation, the dominant methods become increasingly unsatisfactory, and indeed, inappropriate.” (Morgan and Smircich, 1980: 498) Links to the idea of ‘re-search’ and the Russian dolls (Gummesson, 2000: 22) Continuum number 4 From validity understood as accurate measurement

The philosophical ‘continuums’ And reliability as consistent measurement To validity understood as plausibility: “Can our co-created constructions be trusted to provide some purchase on some important human phenomenon?” (Lincoln et al., 2011: 120) Here, validity “cannot be determined by following prescribed formulas. Rather its quality lies in the power of its language to display a picture of the world in which we discover something about ourselves and our common humanity.” (Buchanan, cited in Silverman, 2010: 304) And reliability as dependability

The philosophical ‘continuums’ Links to methodological awareness: “a commitment to showing as much as possible to the audience of research studies … the procedures and evidence that have led to particular conclusions, always open to the possibility that conclusions may need to be revised in the light of new evidence” (Seale, cited in Silverman, 2010: 274) And/ or reliability as irrelevant: “once we treat social reality as always in flux, then it makes no sense to worry about whether our research instruments measure accurately” (Silverman, 2010: 289, summarizing Marshall and Rossman) Continuum number 5 From macro (scope)

The philosophical ‘continuums’ To micro (depth): “seek[ing] clarity and insight by closely examining apparently ‘small’ objects … eschewing empty accounts of ‘big’ issues in favour of elegant analyses that make a lot out of a little” (Silverman, 2007: 29) Continuum number 6 From data gathered/ expressed numerically and analysed statistically To data gathered in words and analysed thematically

What are the preferences and trends in social science research? Although attempts to generate scientific, authoritative knowledge about society have “been increasingly questioned since the middle of the twentieth century … [they are] something that many social researchers would like to forget“ (Smith, 1998: 75) … and there has been a “distinct turn of the social sciences towards more interpretive, postmodern, and critical practices and theorizing” (Lincoln et al., 2011: 97) … “[such] assumptions [still] remain pervasive and continue to provide the general rationale that underpins most theory and research in the social sciences … ” (Johnson and Duberley, 2000: 11), especially in the US

What are the preferences and trends in social science research? Plus the ‘constellation’ idea: “In the material world of actual research practice, the tidy abstraction of the paradigm as a hermetic domain of shared assumptions and world-views quickly begins to give way to the messy reality of contested ideas, multiple ongoing influences, and constant experimentation.” (Prasad, 2005: 8) So social science research is rather like The Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge ...

What are the preferences and trends in social science research? … where animals are apparently classified as: “(a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.” (Borges, cited in Foucault, 1973: xv)

Some food for thought, then There is no ‘one best philosophical way’: “there are no secure or incontestable foundations from which we can begin any consideration of our knowledge of knowledge – rather what we have are competing philosophical assumptions that lead us to engage with [social phenomena] … in particular ways.” (Johnson and Duberley, 2000: 4) Methodology is not an end in itself: “A strategy of inquiry refers to a bundle of skills, assumptions, and practices that researchers employ as they move from their paradigm to the empirical world. Strategies of inquiry put paradigms of interpretation into motion.”(Denzin and Lincoln, 2011: 14)

Some food for thought, then Die-hard/ unacknowledged ontological and epistemological commitments may also blind us to alternatives because they mean that we “view the world in a particular way” (Burrell and Morgan, 1979: 24) We may even argue that “for he who has a hammer, every problem is a nail” (Gummesson, 2000: 66, often attributed to Abraham Maslow)

Summary 1. The ontological, epistemological and methodological questions of what it is that social scientists study, what we can know about our object of enquiry and how we should undertake this knowledge gathering are highly contested 2. We can view the various debates as a series of continua, where individual researchers might be located at different points on each 3. As doctoral students it is crucial that you develop an in-depth understanding of the various debates and controversies

References Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000) Doing Critical Management Research, London: Sage. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, London: Heinemann. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2011) ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, fourth edition, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 1-25. Douglas, J. D. (1967) The Social Meanings of Suicide, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Fleetwood, S. (2005) ‘Ontology in organization and management studies: a critical realist perspective’, Organization, 12 (2): 197-222. Foucault, M. (1973) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, New York: Vintage. Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding Management Research: An Introduction to Epistemology, London: Sage. Kitsuse, J.I. and Cicourel, A.V. (1963) ‘A note on the uses of official statistics’, Social Problems, 11 (2): 131-139. Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A. and Guba, E.G. (2011) `Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, fourth edition, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 97-128.

References Lynch, M. (2000) ‘Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge’, Theory, Culture and Society, 17 (3): 26-54. Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980) `The case for qualitative research’, Academy of Management Review, 5 (4): 491-500. Prasad, P. (2005) Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Seale, C. (ed.) (2012) Researching Society and Culture, third edition, London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2007) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Qualitative Research, London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2010) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, third edition, London: Sage. Smith, M. (1998) Social Science in Question, London: Open University Press/ Sage. Smith, J.K. and Hodkinson, P. (2005) ‘Relativism, criteria, and politics’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, third edition, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 915-932 . Thomas, W.I. (1966 [1931]) `The relation of research to the social process’ in M. Janowitz (ed.) W.I. Thomas on Social Organization and Social Personality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 289-305.

Introduction to the session