I understand ontology as, broadly, what is possible to be known. One way I understand it best is through the differences between the ontological perspectives in what constitute valid knowledge claims, with the neopositivist side focusing on falsifiable and generalizable results and the interpretivists focusing on situated context. Ontology is also closely related to the research process itself, though, not just the types of questions one can ask: for example, concepts within a research design are developed a priori in neopositivist research and then applied as standards, whereas in interpretivist research those concepts are developed in situ through the execution of that research process. Then, ontology continues to inform the ways in which a research product can be used. Neopositivist research treats generalizability as a concept validated within the design itself, whereas interpretivist research shifts the responsibility for generalization from the researcher to the reader. Thus, both types can invoke a pragmatic type of explanatory program, to use Abbott’s phrase, but in very different ways. Methodology, then, I understand to be informed by ontology but not controlled by it. Methodology seems to deal in degrees of abstraction, invoking a tradeoff between what one would consider “generalizable” in the neopositivist world and the specificity of context that interpretivists prioritize. Methodology is also closely tied to the concept of validity in research, limiting the conclusions we can draw based on what exactly the research is trying to measure. These degrees of abstraction and differences in concepts of validity manifest themselves in the “operationalization” of the research as opposed to its formation.
As a researcher, I would consider it impossible to be a truly objective observer of the social world. The immense complexity of lived experience to me implies that any attempt to replicate another’s lived experience will inevitably be altered by the background of the researcher producing it. One of the lessons game theory has impressed most strongly upon me is that although one can predict behavior given knowledge of another’s payoffs, it is impossible to assess another’s payoffs with complete certainty. However, I do believe in the law of averages’ proposition that behaviors will tend towards a certain outcome given a large enough group of people. In research, I therefore think that it is fair to attempt to assign payoffs to a given group, which can be culturally shaped, although such research will need to be rigorously scrutinized and can be fairly criticized for not assigning those payoffs correctly. Dr. Jackson’s counterfactual invoking a realist epistemological perspective made a lot of sense to me when he described objects as having veritable permanence, but having different methods “point” to different sides of that truth.
In making knowledge claims, I am rather comfortable with the more universally measurable aspects like numbers – money, populations, etc. I feel much less comfortable with any analysis attempting to replicate another group’s lived experience. However, I feel that way not in an attempt to dismiss the value or importance of other’s lived experience, but rather because I believe so strongly in its complexity. Somewhere in the middle of those two lies the concept of behavior, whether through norms or through payoffs or any similar type of semi-visible phenomenon. I think that research can certainly make educated guesses about those, although I think that such research must welcome methodological critique in its assertion of the way that culture and lived experience shape such phenomena.
“Methodology, then, I understand to be informed by ontology but not controlled by it.”
I really think this is a good way to look at the relationship between the two. This post was a wonderful breakdown of the basics we have covered in class. I understand what you are saying about the complexity of understanding the social world, but shouldn’t we make an attempt to research, and understand it? (I am truly asking here, maybe we will find out in the next two semesters). I think the same complexity you speak of in regard to other’s lived experience is the same complexity that underpins why one takes their ontological approach. The origin of knowledge seems to be the true base argument (which Abbot discusses in Ch. 1 of his book).
I look forward to your research unfolding. I wonder if you find that other’s lived experiences effect the variables you are going to look at? Or will you see a way to at least get a glimpse of those lived experiences?
David — you raise a number of good questions and discussion points in thinking about Abbott’s basic debates. Be careful with the terminology, though, as in some parts of the post you tend to confuse/conflate some of these ideas (making sure to go back to the readings, and reference/cite those readings, would help!). Early on some of your points that you relate to ontology are really about methodology (process). Later in the post there is a bit of slippage as you think about what we can know in terms of how data are expressed (words vs. numbers). The form data take don’t dictate what we can know–or what is universal or not! Lived experience can be captured in numbers just as well as ideas such as economic grown can be captured in words. Make sure to keep thinking about these debates as you continue your research and as you read research examples!
David–You raise a number of interesting points about ontology–clearly identifying the differences between the different ontological approaches–and also engage with the relationship between ontology in a very interesting way (although, as Dr. Boesenecker said, I would be careful with the terminology you use as far as the numbers/words debate (if that’s even the right word), as not to dichotomize the two and conflate either said with an intrinsic validity or invalidity. From reading this post, and browsing a few of your others, it seems like you’re really interested the “numbers” side of things, favoring more “measurable,” mathematical analysis (which is totally valid in its own right). Just to play devil’s advocate though, how can you engage with your research through these “lived experiences” you’re admittedly less comfortable with–for example, discourse analysis (which can also methodologically yield measurable, scientific results)? How can you frame your research differently to play with this other side? Does it involve a more interpretivist lens? Even though it might be hard with your topic (which I believe is typically cited as quite mathematical, and neopositivist), this might be a fun, cerebral exercise (that could eventually yield a totally different project than you expected).