RPP#3: PHILOSOPHICAL WAGERS
While reading Abbotts debates on methodology, I came to understand Ontology and Methodology as two separate stages of research that together to create the foundational bedrock to how to frame and engage in your research. Ontology I found to be especially interesting and more difficult to grasp because it is a lot more theoretical and abstract then Methodology. An ontology defines one’s view on the world. After exposure to different research methods and doing research on my topic, I have developed a context-dependent ontological view, I believe that the world is socially constructed and that we define our own realities depending on personal experiences. Which eventually leads me to have an Interpretivist methodological view because of their idea that “fact acquire meaning only when it is assigned interaction and interpretation”[1]. This is a change of position from where we first read Abbotts debates to which I originally sided more with the Positivism, but after seeing how the different debates are implemented into research I have decided that interpretivism is of a bigger interest to me.
In the early stages of class, when the question of whether a researcher can be an objective observer or if it is not possible to displace our assumptions from the research was first brought up, I tried hard to believe that we can be objective observers. But, it feels impossible to me to completely ignore your biases or past experiences when doing research. As discussed during our class discussions, if you believe that we cannot separate our personal ties to the research, the best practice is to simply put it out and address it in your research. Accepting your biases and putting them out there can help your research become more well-rounded and fair. If you know that you have a specific stand about an issue and acknowledge this bias, you will more be inclined to read about the opposing argument that refutes your bias and be able to include in your research.
As far as to the question of what can and cannot be researched, I think that almost anything can be researched and studied. Whether it is something theoretical or tangible, they can be examined using the different methodological techniques. It is difficult to imagine how someone can study or measure something that cannot seem or touched or even proved to be true, it certainly was for me to believe, there are different discourse analysis that can measure these ideas. For example, in my own research. When first thinking about the hurdles I might encounter during my research, I thought that there were certain areas and angels I might not be able to touch on because of the limitations of research. But, now I have learned that research is almost limitless.
- [1] Andrew Abbott. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for Social Sciences. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), 43.
I like that I can clearly see your thought process here regarding the reason you side with interpretivists. Your argument seems very well-constructed to me – if objectivity is so crucial in scholarship, and yet we cannot attain it, we have to put this issue at the forefront of our research. It is also interesting how you link it with open-mindedness about other people’s perspectives and approaches. I agree that acknowledging our own biases makes us more tolerant of those of others, but, right after this point, your reasoning diverges from mine. I like to believe that we should not accept our inherent lack of objectivity and just let it be but rather try to overcome it by the means of clearly defined variables and causal relationships. Though it was easy for me to follow your logic and see its validity, it is our fundamental disagreements about the nature of knowledge and the extent of human capabilities in the pursuit of this knowledge that sort us to the opposite sides of this fundamental debate. Reading your post made me see the divide between interpretivism and neopositivism more distinctly, so thank you!
Luis — you’ve done a good job of starting to work through where you fall on Abbott’s basic debates here. As we’ve discussed in class, the important thing is to keep thinking about these debates as we work through the research process. You are not making any final or definitive decisions just yet, but an awareness of how you fall on these debates is important to how you think about the social world as well as how you think about researching it.
Be careful with the idea of “bias” though (also mentioned in Dayana’s comment): if we think about these debates carefully, the idea of “bias” only really makes sense *inside* of the neopositivist/realist world (what is bias, but the idea that we are somehow slanted towards or away from some objective and external truth?). Given the interpretivist 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 — again, 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).
You’re off to a great start here. Keep thinking about all of these debates as you continue your research process!