I was not very familiar with the ontological debates that go on within international relations research before this course. Abbot presents polarized positions on the underlying belief systems people approach information. I found value in Abbot pointing out the polarization can happen due to a debate about the origin of knowledge. In class, we discussed what different people thought their positions were. It came as no surprise to me that people don’t fit perfectly in boxes.

Although I believe that you can observe evidence for research in the social world, I think that interpreting meaning can provide a challenge to an “objective” data set. In my opinion interpretivism has an important place in research, and it is especially important when trying to understand a culture you are not familiar with. I do know this approach has its short-comings though. Data can clearly show a possible link, but psychologically we may not like what the data “says.” On the other hand, the context of data is important, and we need to understand the underlying causes of the framework of any given situation. At a minimum, we need to understand that we are coming from a certain position, and make sure that it is a viable answer to the question we are asking.

I do not think it is a stretch to say statistical data can be used as hard evidence. The challenge arises in the situation I mentioned in the previous paragraph. What if the situation was under a certain set of circumstances, and you cannot replicate that in data.

In my last mentor meeting, I asked Dr. Campbell about being challenged due to your ontological approach. She told me that you have to know your audience, and exactly who you are talking to. We discussed this in class, but I didn’t realize you cannot be distracted by what I will call the “adjacent conversations.” Professor Boesenecker told us that a challenge based on whether your methodology helped to better illuminate the question at hand is important. Did the approach the researcher use add to the knowledge that already exists? Basically, we can’t disagree with research just because we don’t like their position. There can be value from a thought process we don’t necessarily agree with.

I think my biggest challenge as I look at my puzzle will be how Peacebuilders view conflict. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) had an interesting perspective on conflict. It goes one of two ways: toward resolution, or toward violence. Going forward I want to look at the different categories the scholars within Peacebuilding have established, and start to break down the ontological approaches within the different categories. USIP doesn’t automatically assume that conflict means something bad is going to happen, but USIP explores how to prevent bad events from occurring, and start building a foundation of peace. How to be able to interpret conflict in this manner is something I am currently unpacking.