Ontology vs.

Epistemology Page 1 of 14

The Centre for Labour Market Studies

Doctorate in Social Science

Assignment 2
FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH

From Christos Mantas

September, 2006

1
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 2 of 14

Table of Contents
page

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Methodology and Method.......................................................................................................................4
1.2 Research Paradigms...............................................................................................................................5
1.3 SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS AND CHANGE IN PARADIGMS.....................................................................................6
2. THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITIONS.......................................................................................................7
2.1 Positivism...............................................................................................................................................8
2.2 Phenomenology......................................................................................................................................8
3. ONTOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................9
4. FURTHER DISCUSSION AND CONNECTION WITH THE INTENDED RESEARCH PROBLEM..............9
5. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................................12
References and Bibliography...................................................................................................................................13

2
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 3 of 14

1. INTRODUCTION

This assignment gives answers to the second question. The central point of this question is the
following statement:

“Issues of ontology, not epistemology, are the most important to research design”. Its aim is to
critically discuss this statement with reference to the intended research problem.

The choice of the research paradigm significantly impacts upon the character and nature of
research undertaken.

On the one hand, epistemology is concerned with what constitutes valid and worthwhile
knowledge about the subject. On the other hand, ontology, rather than being concerned with
what constitutes valid knowledge (in the social reality), is concerned with what exist in social
reality, that is, it is concerned with the nature of the subject.

For example, consider the studying a ball. To begin with, the ball has certain physical properties,
such as its round shape and its whit color, which are perceived by the senses. Looking at the ball
this way constitutes an ontological approach. Once, however, we decided what aspect of the ball
to examine (say its color), then we have to take up epistemological considerations for how to
know what it is to know about the ball.

It is important to state why do we have to have a clear knowledge of the ontological and
epistemological approaches on social research. The answer to this question is given from Grix
(2002:176). He states that it is important to have knowledge on those two approaches in order to
(1) understand the interrelationship of the key components of research (including methodology
and methods); (2) to avoid confusion when discussing theoretical debates and approaches to
social phenomena and (3) to be able to recognise others’, and defend our own, positions. Those
two approaches are playing a crucial role to social research. Harry Kienzle (1970:413) states that
“ontological and epistemological ideas are embedded in the sociologists’ thinking about man and
his relation to other men, and these ideas help the sociologist shape his definitions of social
phenomena and the areas he will study”. The work of a social researcher, especially the way that

3
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 4 of 14

he or she will construct the methodology and research methods, involves a deal of philosophical
assumptions. The researcher ought not only to know but also to have understood those
assumptions in order to justify part of the criticism that his or her work may receive.

1.1 Methodology and Method

The analysis is important because those two approaches can assist the researcher to design his or
her methodology plan and to decide on research methods used.

Methodology, in general, is concerned with the nature and status of a discipline (Pheby 1988).
For instance, the nature of finance and banking has been molded along the lines of natural
sciences, so the techniques designed for such sciences play an important role in the
organisational discipline. The methodologists typically seek to establish certain standards and
criteria by which we can appraise and evaluate theories (i.e knowledge management). For
example, one type of methodology is instrumentalism, according to which a good theory is a
theory that provides correct and useful predictions.

Method, on the other hand, involves certain steps in research and analysis; these steps are the
following four: (a) forming concepts, (b) building models, (c) formulating hypotheses, and (d)
testing theories.

Thus, two researchers employing the same method may nevertheless hold different
methodological positions. To this end, we say that while we may use a method, we never “use” a
methodology; and while we may describe a method, we cannot “describe” a methodology
(Redman 1993, p.96). To understand the distinction between the two concepts, it would be
interesting to ask the following question. What do the managers do?

Sometimes managers are asked to explain the causes of organisational events, in which case they
act as scientists. For example, a manager may be called to account for the following phenomena:

 Why the organization has high turnover rates?

 Do the personnel follows corporate strategy’s guidelines?
 Would a reduction in corporate income tax would raise investment
 What is the customers’ satisfaction?

4
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 5 of 14

There are different answers for each question that are looking for different methodology
paradigms.

1.2 Research Paradigms

Kuhn (1962) believed that scientific knowledge is the collective opinion of the scientific
community. Scientific knowledge is generated within scientific communities, and the rules and
expectations of those communities play an important role in structuring scientific discourse. It
goes without saying, to understand the dynamics of knowledge we must understand how
scientific communities operate as social structures, how the rules operate within these
communities, and how these rules change. So Kuhn suggests the following stages that scientific
knowledge needs to pass through.

Pre-Science → Normal Science → Crisis and Revolution → Normal Science:

Pre-science refers to the early stages of a new discipline. This phase exists prior to the
articulation of a clear and unified approach to study of relevant phenomena, and there exists little
aggrement on basic concepts and methodology. The predominant characteristic of this stage is
the disarray as many theories compete to explain the same phenomena.
Normal science is the day to day business of the scientific community. The normal science
commences once a scientific community adopts a paradigm, which encompasses a world view as
it forces people to see things in certain ways. The paradigm is a system of foundational tools
and instruments that guide scientists into their work, and as such they are shared by the members
of a given community (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). These foundational tools are the following
(Redman 1988, p.16):

a. General Theoretical Assumptions:

b. Laws:
c. Techniques: The paradigm provides the necessary structure for scientific
investigation.
d. Standards: These standards are measuring rods against which the degree of

5
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 6 of 14

“scientific validity” of a piece of scientific work is measured

e. Metaphysical Principles:

Put differently, the paradigms dictate the right way to examine the world and to this extent the
paradigm determines:

 Which problems it is legitimate to address: for example consider the paradigm that
dictates that the “earth is not flat”. Adopting this view renders the question “how
far is it to the edge of the world” un-interesting. One the other hand, probing into
issues like the volume and the diameter of the planet are “legitimate” issues to be
addressed. In fact, in Kuhn’s picture of normal science, the questions scientists are
permitted to ask are pre-determined by the paradigm.
 Which methods and techniques are appropriate to address these problems
 The Training Appropriate For Aspiring Members Of The Scientific Community:
individual scientists acquire knowledge of a particular paradigm through their
scientific education and training. So in this way the paradigm is articulated and
communicated.
 What Is Good Or Bad, Moral Or Immoral: anything that falls within the
boundaries of the paradigm has an acceptable status. Doubters these are considered
heretics.

The paradigm is a necessary backdrop for undertaking normal science, and in this sense has a
positive function. Without agreement over basic assumptions and methods, every scientist would
always have to start from scratch, explaining and justifying their principles. Hence science is a
social phenomenon that obliges people to see things one way or another, so that there is some
degree of relativism in science.

1.3 Scientific Revolutions and Change in Paradigms

Although the normal science never challenges the paradigm, there will be times when anomalies
do lead scientists to challenge the paradigm. When the paradigm begins to face serious
challenges from practitioners, then we enter a crisis, and this is when a revolution begins. The
main thrust of Kuhn’s work is that major changes in science occur through such revolutions that

6
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 7 of 14

bring about shift of paradigms. But why do paradigms change? As we said a revolution begins
with a crisis. Notice the mere existence of anomalies and unsolved puzzles does not constitute a
crisis. An anomaly will turn out to be serious when:

a) It is seen as striking at the fundamentals of a paradigm, and persistently resists

attempts by the members of the scientific community to remove it.
b) If it relates to some pressing social need. For example, the anomaly to the classical
economic theory of the 1930s was the sustained unemployment. This was a problem
of wide concern, and not just a theoretical curiosity

So as serious anomalies emerge and accumulate, then they have the effect of undermining the
confidence in the paradigm. A crisis arises when an anomaly (an unsolved scientific puzzle)
cannot be compromised with the prevailing paradigm. As paradigm dissidents accumulate, so do
the unsolved puzzles that arise from their challenging positions, and eventually the old paradigm
is destroyed and a new one emerges. This new paradigm will become the normal science of the
next generation.

Therefore, according to Kuhn, science progresses through sudden revolutionary changes and not
by some methodological evolutionary process. Put differently, new science gets accepted, not
because of the persuasive force of striking new evidence, but because old scientists die off and
young ones replace them.

Now, after a brief introduction to the essence of methodology, its time to analyse the
philosophical approaches of social research.

2. THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITIONS

Epistemology derives from the Greek words epistimi and logos. Epistimi stands for science
(Grix (2002) at this point claims that it means knowledge from the ancient Greek word
επίσταμαι) and logos for reason according Grix (2002), deriving from the ancient Greek word
λογική, meaning the one who relies on science. According to Grix (2002), epistemology focuses
on the “knowledge-gathering process and is concerned with developing new models or theories
that are better than competing models and theories”.

7
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 8 of 14

According to Bryman (2004:538) epistemology is a “theory of knowledge. It refers to a stance on

what should pass as acceptable knowledge”. Gary Potter (2000: 234) writes that “epistemology is
a theory of what knowledge is, what is possible to have knowledge of, how it is possible to have
knowledge at all etc.”

We need to know what constitutes real social research and how the latter should proceed. The
central question is the following: what constitutes valid knowledge and how can we obtain it?
The two most extreme forms of epistemological positions in the conduct of research are
positivism and phenomenology.

As we previously pointed out the two extreme epistemological positions are positivism and
phenomenology. These are two different research paradigms, each of which proposes different
rules, practices, habits and customs in setting the research design.

Two other names for the “positivism vs. phenomenology” debate are: (1) the “deductivism vs.
inductivism” debate, and (2) the “quantitative vs. qualitative” debate.

2.1 Positivism
Positivists argue that social research should aim to concern itself with facts and not values.
Values are subjective evaluations about the world containing moral dimensions. Facts, by
contrast, being value-free can be verified by observation or experimentation.

So, according to positivism the most valid kind of knowledge is the objective knowledge, and
we come to know things by testing our ideas through the research process; for this reason
positivism is a theory-testing position, and as such uses a deductive approach. Thus, the
overall conclusion is that according to positivists social research should be modeled on the
natural sciences.

There is more emphasis on the design stage than at the analysis stage. Positivism tries to know
things by testing ideas, it is theory-testing and it looks for standardized ways of measuring and
quantifying the social world (Lecture Manual, 2006)

2.2 Phenomenology
Phenomenologist discard the idea of modeling social research on the natural sciences since the

8
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 9 of 14

behavior of human beings is fundamentally different from the behavior of atoms and matter. In
other words, the subject matter of natural sciences (i.e. atoms and the matter) is different than the
subject matter of social sciences (i.e. human beings).

Phenomenologists suggest that we should use research in order to discover things about our
subject matter, which in the case of social sciences are the human beings. Thus, phenomenology
is a theory-building position, and as such it uses the inductive approach.

There is more emphasis on the analysis stage, than at the design stage. In contrast with
positivism, phenomenology believes that the positivist distinction between facts and values is
fallacy and relies on qualitative methods of research.

3. ONTOLOGY

Nash (1999) writes that the adoption of ontology of social entities has helped a lot the progress
of scientific knowledge and, thought it has been dominated for many years from idealistic
doctrines. Ontology has played a key role to social research.

Ontology concerns on what exists in social reality. Ontology deals with the “nature of reality
and being” Ponterotto (2005:130). Ontology answers to the question ‘What exists in social
reality?’. There is a world that is independent from of the individual’s beliefs, values and
perceptions. Potter (2000:242) says “that ontology is the inquiry into the nature of being or
existence. It is the sense of inquiring into the nature of what sort of entities could be said to exist
that the world is used most often in the philosophy of science”

4. FURTHER DISCUSSION AND CONNECTION WITH THE INTENDED RESEARCH

PROBLEM

There are various views and opinions on which approach fits best in a social research. Morgan
and Smircich (1980: 493) write that “the highly subjectivist view of reality as a projection of
individual imagination would dispute the positivist grounds of knowledge in favor of a
epistemology that emphasizes the importance of understanding the processes through which
human beings concetrize their relationship to their world”. Those writers believe that several

9
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 10 of 14

contemporary qualitative research approaches have been oversimplified, based often on

empirical evidence and they are supporting the case of the ontological approach.

Feibleman (1949) is a thinker that supports ontology but he also refers to authors criticizing
ontology. He says that “the gravamen against ontology rests on the argument that is dogmatic,
absolutistic, undemonstrable, dispensable, non-empirical, opposed to common sense and
inapplicable”(p.42). Feibleman (1949) makes the comment that regarding the case of lack of
empirical evidence, there are many different types of ontology. Ontology for ages was related
with non-empirical sciences such as Theology, where you can not ask, say If God is Green?, but
there is an ontological pluralism to this question. Feibleman (1949:43) writes that “the issue
between one ultimate ontological category and many can be fought over without introducing the
issue between one god and many”. In addition Mathematics is not an empirical science but
mathematics are applying to a world which is based on empirics. Feibleman (1949) manages to
answer to all accusations against ontology and he writes that ontology bears a relation to the real
world both actual and possible and he compares it with a child’s sketch of the outline of his or
her house that is drawn broadly in two dimensions (p.50)

Nevertheless there are some issues concerning ontology. Ontology is not clear on which
approach to use in order to solve the questions given. While epistemology gives some clear
guidelines on which approach to use, phenomenology and positivism, and how to use it,
ontology is not so clear. Another issue is that ontology is not so clear on what these questions
really are and to use them in order to understand what they really are (Künne, 2003). According
to Künne (2003) often researchers and the audience prefer to create or to test a theory using the
“safe road” of epistemology and producing results based on epistemological processes such as a
survey, structured observation or an in-depth interview.

Oliver (1960:297) states that the fundamental problem of epistemology is “concerned with
attitudes of belief toward statements”. In few words, Oliver (1960) raises the issue of which
statements the individual researcher shall believe. It is not easy to distinguish of what is true and
what is false. René Descartes who is considered as the father of modern mathematics and of
epistemology, and the rationalists have referred to two attitudes of belief, the one of completely
certainty and complete disbelief. Of course Locke and others have expressed their view that there
are more than two beliefs towards a statement. Nevertheless, according to Oliver (1960), there is
not any formal classification. He states that “ there is not place in the literature in which one can

10
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 11 of 14

find a sufficiently complete classification of statements needed”(p.299). This a central point for
epistemology. On the other hand ontology does not have this problem since it does not rely on
statements, while ontology does not put limits on knowledge with the usage of certain
statements. On this point Andrew Seth (1894: 571) writes that we never know the real world
qua real”. He means that real world can not be described with statements and hypothesis,
supporting the notion of the ontological approach. Also Harry Kienzle (1970) recognizes that the
idea of adjustment to the environment is a major issue for epistemology.

From the above it is understood that the epistemology is an approach that creates a statement, say
the sky is blue, based on what is constitutes valid knowledge and obtain it using some certain
research methods. Nevertheless, supporters of ontology are claiming that the epistemology
claims a valid knowledge of an invalid world. There is a difference between the way we see the
world and the way that the world actually exists. While epistemology examines a subject from on
the surface ontology goes deeper. Several authors have used the case of god and the universe to
support ontology (Oliver, 1960; Kunne, 2003). In addition Collier (1994) writes that scientists
shall focus onto ontology instead of epistemology. Those authors believe that ontology is
unavoidable (Lecture Manual, 2006). As a matter of fact, there are some limitations to
epistemology. We need realism to investigate some assumptions about the world. Those
assumptions are inaccurate from positivists and relativists; hence realism is the right approach.

Finally Grix (2002) comes to link those two approaches. He claims that “ontology is the starting
point of all research, after which one’s epistemological and methodological positions logically
follow” (p.177). Ontology can be the starting point for a research, while the epistemology will
help the researcher to examine ways of conducting his or her survey through positivism,
phenomenology or triangulation. Here is an argument that favours epistemology because it helps
the research to decide on how he or she will conduct research. Accordingly to the approach used,
positivism or phenomenology, the research can decide on whether to use quantitative or
qualitative methods. Nevertheless ontology is an essential issue for every research since it can
become the starting point, therefore issues of ontology are the most important. At this point it
will be essential to examine this statement in relation with the research.

The research problem deals with knowledge management. Knowledge management is a rather
new concept to the management world. Knowledge Management has been developed like a
storm during the past ten years affecting many businesses and attracting the interest of many

11
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 12 of 14

academics. There is not any exact definition of what is knowledge management (Park et al,
2004). The author is going to investigate a theory that is still developed and does not have much
application in the Greek business world (Chatzikostas, 2005). Therefore it is important to study
knowledge management using the ontological approach as the starting point.

Knowledge exists within social reality. Ontology is the basic structure around which a
knowledge can be built and exist (Kim and Fox, 2002). Knowledge management success is
enhanced when applying a knowledge lens in an ontological manner (Edginton et al, 2004). Thus
issues of ontology are the important for this research.

Knowledge management is about what exists within the knowledge of the employees.
Knowledge is part of organisation’s social reality. Whenever an enterprise understands the
intellectual capital of its employees then it will be ready to manage it. A researcher that
investigates issues of knowledge management needs to understand what constitutes real
knowledge of the social world. This plays an important role to knowledge management. Since
knowledge can be both implicit and explicit (Ardichvili, 2006), it is essential to start from
understanding knowledge within the social context; hence to use ontology as the starting point.
Knowledge is deep on the human’s mind and ontology is the most important issue to this
research, without leaving epistemology outside the research. Epistemology is valuable since it
can help us to see which method is the most suitable (Grix, 2002), but it is important to know
that ontology is the basic issue in this research.

5. Conclusions

Choosing methods and methodology is a key part of a research. The philosophy of social
research will help the researcher to ask himself on what how he should proceed with the
research, what constitutes a real social research and his role in knowledge creation. By defining
the process itself, the researcher will know exactly which methods to use and what instruments.

This assignment examined the two main schools of social research philosophy; the
epistemological and the ontological. The first asks ‘what constitutes valid knowledge and how
we can obtain it?’. The second asks for what exists in social reality.

12
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 13 of 14

Both approaches are important but ontology is the most important issues for this research.
Knowledge exists around ontology, hence ontology is important in a research that deals with the
unique human asset of knowledge. Ontology is the starting point for this research, therefore it is
the most important issue.

References and Bibliography

1. Ardichvili,A., Maurer,M., Li,W., Wentling,T. and Stuedemann,R. ‘Cultural

influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice’ Journal of
Knowledge Management,2006, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 94-107
2. Bryman,A. (2004) ‘Social Research Methods’ 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press
3. Chatzikostas,E. ‘Through knowledge superiority comes: Knowledge Management in
Greece’, 2005, EcoQ Journal , No.50, pp.26-27.
4. Collier,A. (1994) “Why realism? Why transcendental?”, Chapter 1, Critical Realism,
London:Verson (as found on the lecture’s manual R534)
5. Denzin,, N. and Lincoln, Y., 2000. Introduction: The Descipline and Practice of
Qualitative Research. In: Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y, ed. Handbook of Qualitative
Work. Thousand Oaks, 1-281993.
6. Feibleman,J. “A defense of ontology”, The journal of Philosophy, 1949, Vol.46, No.2,
pp. 41-51.
7. Grix,J. “Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research” Politics,
2002, Vol 22, No 3, pp. 175-186.
8. Kienzle,H. “Epistemology and sociology” The British Journal of Sociology, 1970,
Vol.21, No.4, pp.413-424.
9. Kim, H.M. and Fox, M.S. Towards a data model for quality management Web services:
An ontology of measurement for enterprise modeling. In A. Banks Pidduck, et al., Eds.,
CAISE 2002, LNCS 2348, (2002), 230–244.
10. Kuhn, T., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
11. Künne, W. 2003. Conceptions of Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press
12. Morgan,G. and Smircich,L. “The case for qualitative research” Academy of Management
review, 1980, Vol.5, No.4, pp. 491-500

13
Ontology vs. Epistemology Page 14 of 14

13. Nash,R. “What is real and what is realism in sociology?” Journal for the theory of
Social Behaviour, 1999, Vol.29, No.4, pp. 445-466. (found at the lecture’s manual,
R535)
14. Oliver,J. “The problem of epistemology” The Journal of Philosophy, 1960, Vol.57,No 9,
pp. 297-304.
15. Park,H., Ribiere,V. and Schulte, W. (2004)‘Critical attributes of organisational culture
that promote knowledge management technology implements success’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol.8 No.3 , pp.106-117.
16. Pheby, J, 1988. Methodology and Economics. Palgrave.
17. Ponterotto,J. “Qualitative research in counselling psychology: a primer on research
paradigms and philosophy of science” Journal of Counselling Psychology, 2005,
Vol52, No2, pp.126-136.
18. Potter,G. (2000) “The philosophy of social science” Pearson
19. Redman, D., 1993. Economics and the Philosophy of Sciences. Oxford University
Press
20. Seth,A.”Epistemology and ontology”, The philosophical view, Vol.3, No5, 1894, pp.
568-582.
21. Theresa Edgington,T., Choi,B., Henson,K., Raghy,T. and Vinze,A. “Adopting ontology
to facilitate knowledge sharing” Communications of the ACM, November 2003, Vol.47,
N.11, pp.85-90.
22. University of Leicester (Centre for Labour Market Studies) (2006) “ Unit 2:
Foundation of social research”

14