In my eyes, ontology is the study of what is through the lens of a research model. This pairs well with the writings of sociologist Andrew Abbott, where he describes social ontology through the various lenses which he proposes can be used to study his field.[1]For example, in the positivist realm of thought, the world is a vast array of empirical values which can be made into predictive patterns. However, without positivist ontology, this array could not be organized and made sense of. The way that this is achieved is through a research methodology. A methodology is an organized research plan which is employed to find either an answer or greater understanding of a research area. Every academic discipline value a different methodology, or even sub methods within the overall umbrella of that discipline, and it is the job of the researcher to match their own methodology with that of their discipline in order to convey credibility.
As much as one strives to unbiased or downright apathetic toward their field of research, total objectivity remains impossible. Be it from societal influences or ethnic background, there will always be some form of bias present in one’s research. That being said, I believe empirical data points can be derived from many different sources without a normative influence. Of course, this depends entirely on the subject area under question. Cultural and historical relativism must come into play when asking comprehensive research questions. Abbott himself brings up this debate while discussing the divide between Behavioralist and Culturalist realms of thought. He states that there is no real answer to this debate, and one will simply agree on their own research practices based on whether or not they lean toward positivism or interpretivism.[2]In my own opinion, as long as a researcher attempts to be objective as possible, explores other avenues of thought, and explains their methodology coherently, then they have successfully checked all of their metaphorical boxes.
I would make the claim that there is little to no subject which cannot be researched and be explained through a positivist lens. Furthermore, a researcher does not necessarily have to be in the field to have expert knowledge. This does not exempt positivist researchers from having first person knowledge though, as this can be collected through primary sources. As it relates to my own research project, I would make the claim that the world is a puzzle that simply needs to be put together in order to create predictive models. Certain facts of life, such as power, are constant and in the context of the cyberwarfare debate, it is the goal of a nation state to have a comprehensive defense plan with power projection capabilities. As shown by the nuclear arms race, people like to be the most powerful and this same constant can be applied to cyberwarfare. However, there are also social forces at play in this debate, in the form of differing standards of privacy and practices that are determined at the cultural level. All-in-all, I believe that positivism shows the clearest example of what comprehensive research should be. This statement is not meant to belittle other research styles, but in this debate, the winning candidate is front and center.
[1]Abbott, Andrew, “Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences,” (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2004), 52.
[2]Abbott, Andrew, “Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences,” (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2004), 44.
Fellow Tristan,
I greatly enjoy your overall argument regarding the subjectivity of research, especially regarding points where we may be able to reach potential objectivity, as you argue through Abbot’s debate between culturalism and behaviorism. We are ultimately at the mercy of subjectivity, which is especially true regarding the study of history and narratives, as you and I both agree, but I do believe there are some positivist variables that can be applied to these subjective debates – such as the use of ethnographic and demographic methods. These can be used to separate the author’s biases and bring a more objective perspective to their study and even be used to alter their reasoning over the course of their study.
I also find it interesting how you contrast your quite subjective perspective with a predictive mentality, claiming that certain aspects of the world are constant, and that we just need to kind of put the puzzle together in order to make predictions. I find you have more of a middle ground between the use of objectivity and subjectivity, which I look greatly forward to watching evolve over the course of the semester, especially when it comes to your statement “…I believe that positivism shows the clearest example of what comprehensive research should be”. [1] I am curious as to what your personal definition of ‘comprehensive’ research would mean in this sense, as I feel that the definition of comprehensive, as Merriam Webster states as “having or exhibiting a wide mental grasp” , can also be applied to an interpretivist standpoint as well. [2]
While interpretivism does indeed provide a narrower focus on the meaning of interaction within the social world, an interpretivist study, if done thoroughly, can be incredibly comprehensive in its own way. Though it may not be as predictive, it does indeed provide an encompassing view of a specific aspect of how we interact alongside our social world and can have some predictive qualities within specific realms through which the researcher looks through. [3]
It will be interesting to see how much our perspectives alter and change throughout our projects, and though I may not agree with such a statement now, I do wonder if I will come to this point eventually within my own project.
Best of luck!
————————————————————————————
1 Tristan Shogren, “Research Portfolio Post #3: Philosophical Wagers,” Research Portfolio, WordPress, September 15, 2019, https://edspace.american.edu/ts3794a/all-posts-2/.
2 “Comprehensive,” by Merriam-Webster, September 16, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprehensive#synonyms.
3 Kelliher, Felicity, “Interpretivism and the Pursuit of Research Legitimization”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 3, no. 2, (2005). file:///C:/Users/Tristen/Downloads/ejbrm-volume3-issue2-article156(2).pdf
Tristen,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on some of the challenging philosophical debates we’ve been having in class. I find it interesting that you choose to categorize positivism as an ontology; I instinctively classified it as an epistemology. I see your reasoning clearly—positivism suggests that general theories can be extracted from virtually all phenomena. Thus, by classifying it as ontology, you mean to say that our belief about reality and existence is that it can be generalized and predicted. I, on the other hand, think of positivism as a form of epistemology—we know what we know by examining our surroundings and drawing concrete meaning from them. I am sure neither of us are incorrect, but this difference in our understanding certainly stood out to me.
You and I both, however, had nearly identical perspectives on the fallibility of the researcher. The challenge that seems most insurmountable as we embark on our individual projects is whether we know what we’ve produced is credible, valuable, and valid—how can it be, when there is so much we don’t know? You did make an excellent point, which is that empirical data is closer to flawless than most other research techniques, but I raise you this question: can’t the data itself—the ways we collect it, the patterns we notice (and don’t notice), the conclusions we draw from it—be vulnerable to subjectivity? That is the frustrating crux of it all: no matter what, no research method is immune to the superimposing of our opinions, backgrounds, and beliefs.
It was particularly insightful of you to connect the universal knowledge debate to your own research interest of cyber warfare. I agree with you, wholly, that some things can be known for sure, irrespective of historical period or situation, but I have tremendous difficulty making the actual argument for this belief. How can we know with certainty that researchers haven’t simply been making the same mistakes, the same human errors, the same incorrect inferences for years? I don’t mean to chase you into an endless inferential chasm with these meta-cognitive questions, as I don’t even have an answer myself, but it is something we must continue to be aware of as we move forward with our own research pursuits.
Sincerely,
Rachel (Tristen) Rubin
(I, too, want to belong to the Tristen Club.)
Tristan — overall you’ve given us a good discussion of the core concepts in the philosophy of science as well as where a good sense of you fall with your own knowledge commitments at the moment. I would be a bit hesitant to associate disciplines with particular methodologies, though, as you in the first paragraph. For example, in the discipline of international relations you will find research employing all of the methodologies that we will cover (large-n statistical research, small-n case comparative research, and interpretivist research). The affinities among ontology, epistemology, and methodology are much stronger than are any affinities between a discipline (or a topic area) and a methodology.
You have also received some excellent comments and questions from Tristen and Rachel on this post, so be sure to keep considering those comments as you reflect on your own philosophical wagers. Since the question of objectivity came up in your posts and in the comments, I would ask what you (and others) think of the main wager made by neopositivists: namely that the researcher may well be “biased” in some sense, but the very role of systematic, transparent, replicable procedures (methodology!) is to mitigate or eliminate such biases?