After reading Abbott’s debates on methodology and ontology, I noticed the debates are interconnected, categorizing the debates into two different types of thinking: one view of world being generalizable and consistent and another view where the world is dependent on context. Individuals who believe in the “concrete” world are likely to concur with behaviorism, individualism, realism, and noncontextualism. Thus, their methodology beliefs would be positivism and analysis. I label these as concrete because they all imply reality contains a component of stability; for example, routine behaviors in behaviorism or realism which explains social phenomena have endurance. (1) On the other hand, the context-dependent school of thought, including culturalism, emergentism, constructionism, and contextualism subscribe to the interpretivist and narrative methodologies. There is no such thing as one definition, for each definition is based on context and situation. As a child growing up with chemists as parents, I believe social phenomena are measurable and functions based on stable principles. However, after reading Oren’s interpretation of the interconnectivity of relationships, I found time-period and context is important for both schools of thought. While I still believe it is possible to have universal assumptions and claims regardless of context, I believe context’s worth acknowledging in any research, for it can be the cause of many research exceptions.
Researchers have varying opinions on the ontological and methodological debates, so they have unique ways of conducting research based on those opinions of their reality (bias). I don’t think it’s possible to be objective because I think every researcher contributes their own biases to their project. Even though the statistical measurements of Moaz and Russett don’t contain explicit opinions, the project still incorporates their biases when they decided which cases would be the focus. Choice of methodology displays bias because people make decisions based on their beliefs and opinions. It’s as Aristotle says: every investigation or inquiry is directed at something good. (2) While the intention part of Aristotle’s statement may or may not be true, people usually have motivations behind their research. This motivation drives people to be objective but also ensure that the information they find is meaningful. If people have a desire behind their research, then they will inevitably add their bias to confirm the research outcome is, in the eyes of their reality, successful.
In class, we defined validity as the ability to capture what we want to capture, so valid knowledge is information we capture in the way we want to capture it. In other words, can the knowledge or claims withstand multiple tests and is there a systematic process with evidence to support the claims or knowledge? Researchers are limited in their means of obtaining knowledge but not in what can be researched. Visible or invisible social phenomena of our world can be measured through quantitative and qualitative data, but the results and conclusions may or may not be the knowledge the researcher was seeking. Regardless of a researcher’s “success,” in research inconclusion is still a form of knowledge.
- Andrew Abbott. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for Social Sciences. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), 54-55.
- Aristotle, Robert C. Bartlett, and Susan D. Collins. Nicomachean Ethics. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 1094a.
September 21, 2017 at 8:30 pm
A really important point that you brought up in this post is how your background informs the way you see the world. This is an observation that we have not really discussed in class yet, but this is critical to understanding our preconceptions in research. Something I talked about in my post was how I am struggling to separate the traditional view of what is “scientific” with wthe kinds of topics I want to study that may work better with an interpretivist methodology. I think it would be beneficial for both of us as researchers to challenge these ideas we hold so we can understand scholarship more widely and deeply. I also liked how you characterized the overall patterns in all of Abbotts methodological debates as “concrete” or “contextual”. But as someone that has opinions that cross the dichotomy, it leaves more confused about what kind of research I would most like to do.
September 21, 2017 at 9:14 pm
Gwen — you’re off to a good start here in terms of thinking about these basic debates. Your post does a good job of characterizing the debates in broad form, but I don’t have a clear sense as of yet as to where *you* fall on these debates throughout. That is something that you will need to keep thinking about so you understand the way that you approach the social world and how you research it!
As you think about these debates, make sure to be careful with the terms that you use. for example, the idea that the world is “concrete” only for positivists is not quite correct. Both interpretivists and positivists would agree that the world is concrete (real, with implications from actions, meanings, measurable factors). The difference is whether that world exists apart from us (operating according to its own logic that we are trying to discover) or whether we are continually co-constructing that concrete world. Similarly, the idea of “bias” is not a property of any methodology, but of the researcher. Moreover, the very idea of “bias” only really makes sense in a positivist/realist world (there has to be some external truth against which we are biased, by definition!). Given the interpretivists assumption that the social world is fundamentally different than the natural world (not separate from us, operating according to its own internal logic whether we think of it or not) the very idea of “bias” itself doesn’t make much sense — one can only have a “bias” if there is some objective truth apart from us that we are slanted towards or against. But if that is not the case, then it is much more important to think about ideas such as reflexivity and trustworthiness (not “bias” per se).
Keep thinking about these debates, and keep working on integrating all of these new terms and concepts into your work!
September 21, 2017 at 11:24 pm
Gwen, I really like how are able to show the interconnection of ontology and methodology and you do a good job of defining both terms. You are to show how these two practices would differ in the different debates of positivism and interpretivism. You do not really make clear what is your personal stance on these debates but I am definitely intrigued as to where you would fall.
Like professors, Bosnecker said in both your post and in my post, the idea of bias, is only existent in a neo-positivist perspective. But I understand what you are saying and agree with that it is impossible to be objective during research because of how much we involve ourselves in the formulation of our research topics. I found the inclusion of Aristotle in your response to be interesting as you use him to talk about a point I brought up in my response too. In my response, I said that when we started talking about objectivity in relation to our research I tried hard to believe that we could be objective in our research because of the same motivation you bring up in your post.
September 22, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Indeed — as Luis notes, the connection to Aristotle in your post is great!