Ontology and methodology are two concepts that stand at the basis of understanding research. As defined, ontology is the belief about the nature of reality. It is a philosophical study that allows researchers to understand the logic of reality and being. Ontology can be used in social research to understand why and how beings and individuals exist (and thrive or fail to co-exist). Methodology is the actual reasoning about various methods. It provides researchers an opportunity to balance the tradeoffs when selecting a particular research method for their study. It allows for careful consideration by researchers in hopes to find the best method for their future inquiry.

I have noticed my immediate concerns in regards to a researcher’s ability to fulfill the role of “objective observer.” The question stands, can anyone ever be objective? In Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett’s “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986” I found that because of their vast dataset and hopes of finding general patterns, they had to quantify data that was previously qualitative. The statistics provided allowed for Maoz and Russett to conduct a test and explain why the numbers were the way they are. Comparing it with John Owen’s “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace” Owen was able to state historical facts and deeply analyze them. Both cases allow for equal biases, however, I think to be an “objective observer” one must take the role of researcher and truth-seeker as a priority. I noticed within these pieces that the choice to use target cases versus representative cases was much larger than just what is on their research. They both respectfully play into different biases. Was there sample bias? Was there bias in reporting the findings? How much of a researcher’s initial thoughts are present in the concluding discoveries? In recognizing opposing arguments both research reports were able to help combat this. Wayne Booth encourages in “The Craft of Research,” researchers should engage with their sources and focus on entering a conversation with previous researchers. This method and mindset will assist in me so that I can take a step back and view the social world as objectively as possible.

In order to make valid knowledge claims about my own research, I think using the interpretivism mindset by pushing myself to understand the complexities of practices and symbols will allow me to delve into the most culturally understanding perspective of any topic in relation to environmental sustainability.  To engage with primary sources is an obvious top priority, however, past this, I must be open and willing to accept and trust the research done by my predecessors. I physically will not be able to write solely on interactions that I see with my own eyes for this specific research project. Cultural and social norms will be vital to understanding the way people act and further, the way people think.