I understand ontology to be a philosophical conversation about the fundamental characteristics of the social world. I tend to believe that social realities exist separately from people (and the researcher) and are enduring in their own right. This opinion would certainly fall on the side of objectivism. Conversely, a constructionist would probably argue that social phenomena are constantly destructed and reconstructed, meaning that any attempt by a researcher to study a phenomenon is not an objective “reality” that can be studied, but rather a product of its context. If, as Andrew Abbott says of constructionism, phenomena are “simply produced (or reproduced) in a social interaction as need be” (1), then it is difficult for me to reconcile this belief with what I feel to be the purpose of research in the social sciences: to better understand the social world by discovering or applying general laws or theories to explain social phenomena. It is thus easy to see how my conceptions and beliefs about the nature of what we can study in the social sciences would have significant ramifications for my methodology.
Likewise, I understand methodology to be the logical conversation that one has with oneself about the best methods to acquire knowledge about a topic. Since I believe that social realities exist separately from people and are enduring, it logically follows that I believe my goal as a researcher to be the collection of knowledge and (the most important part), its distillation — a word at which an interpretivist would no doubt recoil — into overarching conclusions that either apply some rule to the phenomenon, qualify an existing one, or synthesize some new one. Therefore, I do believe that we can generate valid general knowledge about social phenomena, norms, patterns, customs, and trends in much the same way that we can generate valid general knowledge about physical phenomena, since we can, in fact, objectively observe the social world as researchers. Just as Abbott says that positivists believe that social phenomena can be measured in ways that “are independent of context, replicable by different people, and comparable for accuracy and validity,” I believe that the social science research should live up to its name in exactly this way; and I ground this methodological belief in my ontological one — that the social world is independent and lasting.
(1) Abbott, Andrew Delano. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004.
(2) Abbott, Andrew Delano. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004.
A well-written post, Jack! It is good to see you working through the basic debates from Abbott and articulating where you fall on those debates. Knowing where you fall is good, but don’t stop reflecting on these questions. Remember, as well, that it is just as important to try to understand the internal logic of the other positions to be able to understand and evaluate research from those positions (this is the critical “internal validity” question that applies across the spectrum of the basic debates that Abbott discusses). Good job overall here!
Formatting/citation note: remember that your footnote citations need to contain the precise page number of the material you are quoting or paraphrasing (see course citation guide).