Research Portfolio Post #3: Philosophical Wagers

Contemporary academic research rests on several philosophical wagers, beginning with the concept of ontology, or the question of what kind of knowledge is out there to know. When we discussed the debates between objectivism and constructionism, or what Andrew Abbott calls realism and constructionism, I approached them feeling entirely certain of my beliefs about how knowledge should be understood. Once we started pulling apart objectivism and constructivism, (Andrew Abbott. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences, first edition. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), 46.) I realized that I recognized aspects of both debates to be valuable and valid, which was challenging because the debates are mutually exclusive. While I agreed with the objectivist or realist position that there are transcendental or universal aspects of society, I also strongly identified with the constructivist position that we as researchers cannot separate ourselves form the world we are researching. The discussion over methodology was less challenging to me, because even though the choice of methodology rests on these primary ontological debates, the choice of methodology is relevant to the type of knowledge one is seeking in research and does not influence the internal validity of the project itself. I think my struggle with the ontological debates comes from wanting a single perspective on how I should conceptualize the world, and that the best way for me to grow as a researcher is to open myself to the prospect of holding multiple and conflicting views towards conceptualizing knowledge at the same time rather than being beholden to one side.
That being said, I would say I tend towards the constructivist or interpretivist side more than the objectivist or positivist perspective. Abbott describes the interpretive perspective as holding that “events that seem to be measurable in fact acquire meaning only when it is assigned to them in interaction” (Abbott, 43), which I feel more comfortable with than the idea of universal and constant meaning in social life. However, I also fully accept that there are underlying tensions intrinsic to social life that are present in all societies. I think that we cannot entirely separate ourselves from our research in social life because we as humans are inherently part of social life, and therefore there is no such thing as truly objective research. For my own project, regardless of the methodology I choose, this means a deep examination of my own influence and perspective on the knowledge I discover.
The type of knowledge I believe I can uncover is not necessarily things I can only observe with my eyes, but also things that are deeper within societal structures. In particular, I want to discover both the surface-level aspects of conflict resolution and security that involve women—such as how many women are present at the negotiating table, how long peace treaties last, and the issues central to conflict—and the vaguer undercurrents involved with the female experience of security and conflict resolution, like what are the psychological, social, cultural, and physical obstacles to inclusive security.

2 Replies to “Research Portfolio Post #3: Philosophical Wagers”

  1. Julia — you’ve done a good job of starting to think through your own ontological and methodological perspectives here. Noting that understanding both sides of the basic debates that Abbott identifies is also important. After all, no matter where one lands on these debates, a correct understanding of the other position(s) is essential to being able to evaluate and understand research that departs from those other positions.

    With all of this in mind, what “concrete” or practical implications do you think that your choices on Abbott’s basic debates have for your own consideration of research puzzles within your topic area of interest?

    Formatting/citation note: please make sure that you are using the required Turabian footnote citation format in all of your work.

  2. Julia, I really liked that you recognized the validity of both points of view — at some point, I have to struggle to see and understand the sides of the argument I don’t agree with, but it seems to be something that comes naturally to you! It seems like something that will aid you in your research! Also, I liked that you grounded your beliefs about methodology in your beliefs about ontology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *