The concept of ontology in social science research is how a researcher conceptualizes their world. It asks: do they think that social phenomena are consistent and stable across time and situation, or do they think that social phenomena are constructed by its participants? [1] These guiding ideas about how social phenomena even occur shape the way researchers determine what knowledge is out there, what they are able to know. Objectivists take the stance that social phenomena exist beyond the actors, that they are enduring and stable and will occur despite societal differences. [2] Constructivists, on the other hand, believe that the world is socially constructed and, thus, social phenomena does not exist beyond the individuals that engage in it. [3] The constructivist stance means that social science researchers cannot ever fully extricate themselves from the phenomena they are researching. This is not necessarily a negative thing, just something that must be noted.
Methodology is the choices that a researcher makes in order to collect and create knowledge. It is the reasoning for choosing certain methods–specific tools used for research and analysis–to conduct a study. [4] Like ontology, methodology greatly affects the outcomes of a study. Ranging from a neopositivist statistical analysis to an interpretive discourse analysis, the methodology of a study determines the manner in which the information is presented and analyzed.
As a researcher, I don’t think that I can truly be an objective observer of the social world. Researchers participate in the social world, their sole purpose is not to sit in a room and conduct research at all times. In their book Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes, Peregrine Schwartz-Shea and Dvora Yanow explain the interpretivist notion of humans as agents, not objects, who actively construct their societies. [5] Whether they know it or not, researchers participate in this construction and all of their prior knowledge, experiences, beliefs, etc. impact the way they approach a study. It’s like the idea that you can’t ever truly observe a phenomenon because the simple act of your observation inherently changes the phenomenon itself. To give a more concrete example, say the boss tries to observe their employees, the employees will (in theory) be more on task and productive because their boss is watching them. This means that their boss is unable to observe their “normal” behavior. If I take an interpretivist approach in my research, I will have to make sure that my influence on the study proves to enrich the contextualization rather than bais it.
I think that research can be conducted on and make knowledge claims about almost anything as long as there is solid methodology behind it. At first glance, it seems as though research can only make claims about things that can be proven with statistics or case studies, but when we look at the interpretivist side of research, we see that there are still very valid claims made by completely different methodology. Take, for example, Lisa Wedeen’s article on symbolic politics in Syria. [6] Wedeen explains the way Asad retains control over Syria through the story of M, a “fictional narrative of a purportedly true event.” [7] The details of M’s story aren’t crucial to my explanation. What is crucial is that Wedeen uses this ‘fictional narrative’ to explain the meaning of individual participation in Asad’s cult of personality–individuals pretending they believe the rhetoric, even when they don’t. [8] Wedeen’s article serves as an example of a critical piece of research that explains more than just causal relationships, but the meaning behind the actions of a populace. This leads me to believe that social science research can make claims about any phenomena in the social world as long as those claims are thoroughly supported and have a basis in reputable methodology.
[1] “Philosophy of Science” (Kaltura, 2017), accessed August 30th, 2018, https://blackboard.american.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_171974_1&content_id=_4156351_1&mode=reset.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Peregrine Schwartz-Shea and Dvora Yanow. “Starting From Meaning” in Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes, (New York: Routledge, 2012), 46.
[6] Lisa Wedeen. “Acting “As If”: Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 40, no. 3 (July 1998), 503-523.
[7] Ibid, 504.
[8] Ibid, 506.
Bibliography
“Philosophy of Science.” Kaltura, 2017. Accessed August 30th, 2018. https://blackboard.american.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id= _171974_1&content_id=_4156351_1&mode=reset.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine and Dvora Yanow. “Starting from Meaning” in Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes, 45-53. New York: Routledge, 2021.
Wedeen, Lisa. “Acting “As If”: Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 40, no. 3 (July 1998), 503-523.
September 18, 2018 at 2:04 pm
It seems that there may be a contradiction between your last two paragraphs. How can a biases researcher produce valid knowledge claims? With this constructivist ontology, aren’t research and its subsequent conclusions simply a product of the researcher’s bias, regardless of the employed methodology?
September 25, 2018 at 1:27 am
You have articulated some good thoughts here on these important debates, Megan. I think that Jordan’s comment/question points out something important to think about, though–there is something of a contradiction in the positions you outline in the last part of the post, so how would you address or reconcile that?
Perhaps one part of the answer is to be more careful in using the term “bias.” As we’ve discussed in class, this concept *only* makes sense in the neopositivist world where there is the assumption of an actual, separately existing truth against which we can test our explanations. Assumptions is probably a more accurate term when we think about these basic debates from Abbott. “Bias” implies some sort of deliberate slant, whereas our ontological and epistemological assumptions are more subconscious and involuntary. Indeed, the very idea behind properly selecting statistical controls (along with some other methodological tools in the neopositivist world) is to allow researcher to be aware of, and control for, potential biases.