I understand the concept of ontology to be how a researcher views the world they are studying. Basically, what a researcher believes that we can learn about the world through research. Meanwhile, methodology is the set of assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge that inform what tools we use to get at whatever knowledge we believe to be out there.
When we were initially discussing the different ontological outlooks in class, I instinctively found myself drawn to the neo-positivist/realist/transcendent knowledge side of the debate. After subsequent readings and discussions, I am even more convinced that it is possible to ascertain objective knowledge about the social world. That is not to say that researchers are free from bias but I do think those biases can be accounted for and dealt with in a way that moves us closer to objective knowledge.
Interpretivists argue that an objective social world cannot be studied since researchers, being part of the social world, cannot possibly separate their values and biases from what they are studying. For example, in his article The Subjectivity of the “Democratic” Peace, Ido Oren argues that the democratic peace theory is less about democracy, or any other trait of government, and more about political scientists redefining the values they judge governments so as to emphasize what makes us similar to our allies and different from our adversaries.[1] However, I find this argument unconvincing as it is possible to test for many variables in assessing the strength of a hypothesis. That can include variables designed to assess various understandings of “our kind” in order to determine whether values stressed at different times in history have different impacts on the propensity of nations to go to war with each other. In that way, one can control for the values the researcher may bring into a study.
I think it is possible to make valid knowledge claims about all the things listed in the prompt to this question. The one thing a researcher has to be concerned about is mixing normative value claims with knowledge claims, something that could influence the objectivity of the research produced by that researcher. This is something I will have to be careful with regards to my own research because, from a normative perspective, I value democracy and view it as a good thing. However, if I allow that to influence the process by which I make knowledge claims it will undermine the validity of my research.
[1] Ido Orren. “The Subjectivity of the ‘Democratic’ Peace.” International Security Vol. 20, No. 2 (Fall 1995): 147-188. (Accessed September 18, 2017).
Noah — it is good to see you considering these “basic debates” from Abbott and starting to figure out where you come down on the debates. Understanding how and why you identify more with the positivist side of these debates, broadly speaking, is fine. However, I would encourage you to spend some more time studying the constructivist/interpretivist dimension, as you mischaracterize some of the key assumptions of those positions in your post. For example, it is quite correct that “Interpretivists argue that an objective social world cannot be studied since researchers, being part of the social world, cannot possibly separate their values and biases from what they are studying.” On the one hand, the interpretivist claims is not about the “objectivity” of the world itself, but about the position of the researcher in it. Given the 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 — 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). So, figuring out that you identify more with the positivist stance is perfectly fine, but make sure that you understand the other positions since a correct understanding is essential to being able to evaluate and understand research that departs from those other positions.
Noah-
I think it is important that you have started to understand and align yourself with neo-positivist outlook, however, it is still early so I would try to keep an open mind about other lenses of research. How can you think about your specific topic within the two different stances we have discussed? I think relating this back to your topic area will be useful in keeping an open mind with both.