Epistemology is a philosophical concept that looks at knowledge and its scope. Generally, epistemology tends to ask what knowledge is all about and how one can get hold of it. Further, it considers how relevant knowledge is to a particular subject. One of the philosophers behind the idea of metaphysics is Plato.
Metaphysics attempts to explain how the world is understood by human beings. It is also concerned with the origin and structure of the universe. Metaphysics thus looks at what is in existence and what it is like. Drawing from s study by Ram-Prasad (2013), metaphysics tends to revolve around the use of language and the ultimate picture that one may have about the world. For Plato, epistemology is regarded as the understanding of what knowledge really is. Apparently, knowledge is about what exists. This is totally different from belief which looks at that which is present as well as that which is not present.
Comparison
In epistemology, skepticism casts doubts about the existence and reality of knowledge. Arguably, the fact that a person believes in something does not necessarily imply that he or she has knowledge about it. In the same way, metaphysics presumes that there is nothing that exists unless it is possible to ascertain its existence.
Rationalism in epistemology looks at reason as the main source of knowledge. Consequently, the main criterion that is used to accept knowledge is based on intellectual arguments. Similarly, rationalism in metaphysics is concerned with the provision of sound reasoning to prove the existence of things. Apparently, nothing exists if its existence can not be explained through reasoning.
Both epistemology and metaphysics give consideration to what is real and not what is imaginary in a material sense. However, while metaphysics focuses on the physical existence of matter, epistemology applies the same reasoning to the existence of knowledge.
In epistemology, what really counts is the understanding of knowledge about a particular topic of interest. Although this is somehow different from what metaphysics looks at, both are concerned with reality.
Epistemology is concerned with the reality about knowledge while metaphysics is concerned with reality about the existence of material substances. According to Dicker (2002), it is imperative to ensure that a connection exists between epistemology and metaphysics. This is because of the obvious overlaps that are seen to bring the two together.
Contrasts between Epistemology and Metaphysics in Relation to Skepticism, Rationalism, and Materialism
Generally, epistemology looks at skepticism with regard to knowledge. It thus looks at different aspects of knowledge and the way knowledge can be acquired. Apparently, skepticism under epistemology is concerned with clearing any doubts that may exist about the existence of knowledge.
On the other hand, skepticism under metaphysics focuses on the actual existence. Under metaphysics, it is absolutely necessary to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that what one claims to be present, does exist in actual sense. Often, doubts arise in the absence of such a proof.
It is not enough for people to simply be aware that something exists. For recognition purposes, proof must be presented.
As far as rationalism is concerned, epistemology relies on an intellectual perspective to explain the existence of knowledge. There has to be a reasonable argument that supports the existence of knowledge. In metaphysics, rationalism is with respect to the existence of something. Seemingly, there is nothing that can be presumed to exist without a reasonable argument. Everything that exists must be evidenced by a logical argument.
In metaphysics, materialism assumes the existence of a world that is completely independent of the human mind. In other words, the existence of the universe has nothing to do with the human mind. In metaphysics, material reality is not possible in the absence of physical matter. Therefore, while metaphysics is concerned with the existence of physical matter, epistemology looks at the notion of reality with respect to knowledge.
Metaphysics is also all about the exact nature of reality while epistemology is about what people believe and the kind of knowledge in their possessions.
Examples of Real Life Applications of Skepticism, Rationalism, and Materialism
Regarding materialism, several logical arguments have been presented concerning the existence of God. To a large extent, the arguments depend on the way human beings reason. According to research findings, this concept of materialism was proposed by Thomas Aquinas and Saint Anselm, two ancient philosophers.
Apparently, most people tend to believe that God, being powerful and at the same time good, should be able to avert evil in the society. The fact that evil is ever present in the society makes people wonder whether God is really that powerful. As a matter of fact, there are some people who are convinced that there is another being other than God who in total control of what happens in the universe.
Generally, skepticism has to do with doubt.
One example about skepticism is about a common assumption that people like making about life. Oftentimes, people allege that we should eat, drink, and be happy since tomorrow we will be dead. While this may be true, it is surrounded by so much uncertainty. Since it is in God’s hand to determine our fate the next second, minute, hour, or day, it is wrong to make such assumptions. People who live by such a philosophy may end up in a sorry state in the event that they spend all they have and are unable to cater for their needs the following day. It is advisable to be prudent about such allegations.
Another common example of skepticism concerns the belief that taking a spoonful of sugar is helpful, for making the medicine sink down the throat. Usually, it is presumed while the medicine may taste bad at the moment, it has long term benefits. However, this belief may not apply if the medicine has no benefit in the long run or if the medicine is tasty without the sugar.
To a large extent, skeptics have very little confidence in anything unless there is solid proof to support any allegation that is made. Nothing is what it is alleged to be until solid evidence is presented to remove any form of doubt. However, according to Hetherington (2013), it is important to have physical matter in place before seeking to prove that it actually exists.
By and large, rationalists are people who believe that knowledge can only be understood through reasoning (Sharlow, 2007). Consequently, it is impossible to talk about having arrived at knowledge without reasoning. An example of rationalism in real life is where some people have denied religion because of the way they think. However, being rational does in any way overlook the presence of God in our lives. Advocates of rationalism such as René Descartes still believed in the existence of God. This notwithstanding, there is completely nothing to deny the fact that reason leads to the acquisition of knowledge. Rationalism can also be demonstrated by complex equations in mathematics created by René Descartes through reasoning. According to Descartes, this was one way of ensuring that errors are not overlooked when considering important matters.
Conclusion
As discussed in this presentation, epistemology and metaphysics help to explain why people behave or regard things in a certain way.
While epistemology looks at different issues with regard to knowledge, metaphysics considers the existence of things.
As pointed out earlier, epistemology is concerned with knowledge and as well as its reach. It asks what knowledge is all about and how can be accessed by any interested party. It also considers how relevant knowledge is to a given subject.
Metaphysics on the other hand is mainly concerned with providing explanations about the understanding of the world by human beings. To a certain extent, it is also concerned with the origin and structure of the universe. Metaphysics thus looks at what is in existence and what it is like.
While there are differences that exist between metaphysics and epistemology, it is equally important to be aware of the fact that there are similarities that bring these two branches of philosophy together with regards to different philosophical theories.
References
Dicker, G. (2002). Hume’s Epistemology and Metaphysics: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hetherington, S. (2013). Metaphysics and Epistemology: A Guided Anthology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ram-Prasad, C. (2013). Advaita Epistemology and Metaphysics: An Outline of Indian Non-Realism. New York, NY: Routledge.
As man approached the end of the second Millennium, a complexity of problems arose mainly because of man’s ability to manipulate technology and exploit resources at a faster rate than nature could replenish.
The world, for the first time, experienced major environmental challenges that called for man’s attention. Of great importance in the early 1980s were the depletion of natural resources and the menace of climate change. This automatically called for caution in the utilization of the world’s natural resources to ensure some level of sustainability.
The World Commission on Environment and Development’s (WCED) report in 1987 commonly referred to as Brundtland´s “Our Common Future” marked the introduction of the concept of sustainable development in the global arena. According to this report, sustainable development is development that “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising ability of the future generation to meet their needs” (United Nations, 1987).
Although criticized by many as being vague, I give Our Common Future credit for changing people’s way of thinking concerning development, environment and governance. The Brundtland´s “Our Common Future” provided the theoretical framework upon which all other conceptual frameworks instigate.
Different people have attempted to give meaning to the concept of sustainable development through redefinition of the concept hence resulting into new knowledge and way of thinking about sustainable development. This essay, therefore, presents a critical analysis of the epistemological development of sustainable development theory.
The development of the theory of sustainable development over the past two decades took the form of various transformations in its definition to capture different elements of sustainability as outlined in sustainable development. Since the first definition of sustainable adopted by WCED in 1987, different people and institutions alike have made efforts to provide a better definition of the concept of sustainable development resulting into different versions of the theory as analyzed below.
Institutional Version
The most popular institutional versions are definitions by WCED, IIED, and WBCSD. All these institutional definitions put emphasis on “need satisfaction.” While some authors criticized WCED’s definition of sustainable development as a vague conceptual framework, all the institutional versions of sustainable development borrow from the idea of Our Common Future.
In an attempt to provide an elaborate definition, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) expounded WCED’s definition by identifying three systems as basic to the process of development.
According to IIED, sustainable development is one that maximizes on goal achievement across three systems: ecological, economic, and social (Mebratu, 1998). The IIED definition also introduces a new term, “primary environmental care” (PEC) referring to sustainability at the grassroots level.
Based on IIED definition, solutions towards sustainable development must focus on the empowerment of people to be real players in their own development and protect their environment while meeting their basic needs (Mebratu, 1998). Although introduced in the late 1990s, this version of sustainable development has provided the conceptual framework for the 21st century sustainable development.
The IIED’s sentiments were repeated in the 2005 World Summit, which also identified economy, society and environment as the three key pillars of sustainable development. The IUCN report on Renowned Thinkers meeting in 2006 also carried forth the sentiments of IIED of sustainable development as a three-faceted concept with each facet interacting with each other in the development process (IUCN, 2006).
Similar to IIED, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) borrowed from Brundtland´s “Our common Future” and viewed economic growth and environmental protection as two inextricably linked terms (Mebratu, 1998). According to WBCSD, sustainable development is one in which economic growth focuses on meeting human basic needs without harming the environment on which life depends (Mebratu, 1998).
This definition adds to the existing knowledge and asserts that global economic growth is essential for improving the lives of the poor, for sustaining the world’s populations, and for stabilizing population (Mebratu, 1998). This version of sustainable development advocates for technological development, but emphasizes the need to provide active leadership to ensure that the current measures to facilitate economic growth does not compromise the potentials for future economic growth.
Institutional versions of sustainable development are credited for spearheading global campaigns on sustainable development. They have acted as a wake up call for the world to undertake its development endeavours in a sustainable manner. It is worth noting that different initiatives including Agenda 21, Millennium Development Goals and the contemporary world Corporate Social Responsibility are pegged on the institutional versions of sustainable development theory.
The Ideological Version
Unlike the institutional definitions of sustainable development, the ideological version focuses on identification of the cause of environmental crisis, its solution and the role of leadership in the “show”.
Introduced in the mid-1970s, eco-feminism became a popular ideology in the early 2000s. Eco-feminism carries the notion that a clear understanding of human domination over nature requires an understanding of the dominant gender structures in the society. Eco-feminists view male domination over female as the source of environmental crisis and any concrete solution must address this problem and provide appropriate framework for gender equality in order to realize sustainable development.
I, however, find this version reductionist in its conceptual framework and more of a feminist concept that aims at passing across feminist ideas hence can be misleading. Sustainable development is a complex concept of which gender equality is just a portion of the bigger picture.
Eco-socialism, on the other hand, views capitalist oppression as cause of environmental crisis and sustainable development has to take the form of ecologically oriented socialist development (Mebratu, 1998). Popularized in the late 1990s eco-socialism emphasizes the need to utilize natural resources for the common good of all mankind and views the current environmental challenges as a creation of the existing economic system (Mebratu, 1998).
Eco-socialism advocates for a sustainable development whereby resources are equitably distributed and appropriate technology employed to utilize the world’s resources. To some extent, eco-socialism ideology is right in explaining why third world countries are experiencing a myriad of environmental challenges.
The prevailing economic systems augment income inequalities with the majority of the population languishing in poverty. As a result, the poor turn to the environment in order to meet their basic needs leading to environmental destruction. Unless the leaders address such inequalities, sustainable development remains elusive. Resources have to be equitably distributed and appropriately utilized for the common good of the whole population.
Another contemporary ideology is eco-theology. With increased popularization of the concept of sustainable development, the church is slowly adopting this concept in its preaching. Developed in the late 1990s, eco-theology argues that the current environmental crisis is a result of the religious teachings that give man dominance over nature.
Eco-theology, therefore, emphasizes the need to conserve nature, and exercise love and respect for human nature. According to Haught (1996), the current environmental crisis is a result of human greed whose solution only lies in “a renewed commitment to humility, to the virtue of detachment, and to the central religious posture of gratitude by which we accept the natural world as a God’s gift and treat it accordingly.” (cited in Mebratu, 1998).
Eco-theology introduces a new knowledge on respect for humanity and nature as gifts from God that must be cared for. Unfortunately eco-theology tries to use religious believes to solve secular problems, which may not work out in the practical world. This view may only be accepted among religious populations hence does not provide a solid conceptual framework for sustainable development.
The Academic Version
The academic versions of sustainable development draw our attention to the empirical response to the 21st century environmental crisis. Key contributors include economists, sociologists and ecologists. According to economists, we should treat the environment like a commodity that can be valued. Economists argue that the undervaluation of environment as a free resource is to blame for the over-exploitation and thus degradation of environmental resources.
If only we would give environment its proper value, then its protection would come automatically just like any other expensive good (Mebratu, 1998). For the economists, therefore, sustainable development involves a determination of the value of the environmental commodities from supply-demand curve to be able to identify appropriate protection techniques for each commodity based on its price (Mebratu, 1998).
Economists suggest that after identifying its price, the concerned authorities can exercise economic prices for environmental commodities through introducing taxes for environmental damages, subsidizing environmental improvement initiatives, or issuing permits for environmental goods to create a competitive market. The economist version of sustainable development became popular in the early years the third millennium following a renowned effort to conserve the environment.
The current environmental sustainability initiatives borrow from the economist thinking. Globally, governments are introducing penalties for environmental crimes, polluter fees for companies and individuals discharging effluents direct to the environment, licenses for environmental commodities and incentives to promote community-based environmental conservation initiatives.
Ecologists, on the other hand, view sustainable development as a concept that emphasizes diversity of nature as well as human nature. The ecologists argue that, with all other factors kept constant, nature is a self-sustaining system. Human interferences thus only disorganize the natural processes creating ecological crisis.
Ecologists view the diversity and richness of life as values that human nature has no right to interfere with (Mebratu, 1998). Ecologists also emphasize the need to promote cultural and social diversity in order to ensure the survival of the planet. Ecologists use the term deep ecology to refer to the identification of the causes of environmental crisis as well as the provision of appropriate solutions to the problems.
Even though academic versions of sustainable provide some knowledge to the theory, they all start from a reductionist point that seeks to impose their views on the decision-making process. For this reason, there remains a lack of interdisciplinary consensus on the theory of sustainable development. What works best for economists may not provide a solution to environmental crisis from an ecologist point of view. Besides sustainable development is more than just environmental sustainability.
Conclusion
Sustainable development is a complex concept whose definition has changed over time to increase its scope and provide new knowledge on the subject. The concept of sustainable development has evolved over the past two decades in a manner that has broadened human understanding of developmental challenges.
There exist many definitions of this concept, but one thing remains clear; sustainable development is about meeting basic human needs, protecting the environment and ensuring good governance for the common good of everyone now and in the future.
References
IUCN, 2006. “The future of sustainability: Re-thinking environment and development in the twenty-first century.” IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 2006. Web.
Mebratu, D., 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Elsevier. Web.
In the recent past, a lot of research has been carried out to determine the nature of learning among students and the type of skills that facilitate their performance in school. “Many scholars have also observed that students in institutions of higher learning tend to have developmental changes on how they perform the learning activities” (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). For example, some students may perform poorly in mathematics because of their beliefs about the subject. Presently, students are pressurized to achieve good academic performance in academics. Many higher institutions of learning have understood the importance of increasing retention rates (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Therefore, a good understanding of the factors which influence the success of students in universities and colleges is important. This paper aims at giving a philosophical analysis of Schommer-Alkins’ article that discusses the relationship of the variables that determine academic success. Schommer –Alkins’ article is based on research that was conducted to determine “the relationship among conceptions of knowledge approaches to learning, personality and academic success” (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).
Analysis
Schommer-Alkins’ perspective
Personal epistemology aims at “analyzing an individual’s perception about the occurrence of knowledge; what acts as knowledge and how we can construct and evaluate knowledge’’ (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The conception of knowledge can be defined as beliefs that can determine the outcome of understanding and learning. Schommer distinguished four types of beliefs (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Approaches to learning refer to different perspectives that students adopt when handling learning activities. These approaches refer to the tactics that a person applies to accomplish a given task or objective (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). University students were the participants in the research (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).
Schommer developed a questionnaire that he used to examine the students’ beliefs about knowledge (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The epistemological questionnaires are believed to have the capacity to determine the default behavior of an individual. The philosophical assumption of the epistemological questionnaire is its ability to include both dominant and default elements of a given belief (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The application of the belief approach enabled the researchers to determine the student’s capacity to internalize a given text (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).
Through the application of the belief approach, Schommer together with other researchers was able to come up with a connection between epistemological beliefs and students’ ability to comprehend a given text (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Since knowledge involves ambiguous issues, it was hypothesized that individuals who rarely accepted simple knowledge were likely to demonstrate a high level of thinking about adopting a given perspective (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The second hypothesis was that belief in learning quickly had a connection with reflective thinking which takes a lot of time (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).
The outcome of the research proved the above-mentioned hypotheses. For instance, if individuals strongly believed in complex knowledge they would readily accept complicated information. Thus they would also adopt many approaches to learning (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Secondly, as many people accept the development nature of understanding, they would probably accept many approaches to learning (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). In other words, the outcome justifies that there exists a connection between the beliefs of a person, learning, and knowledge. Even though this study did not intend to reflect on gender issues, it revealed that women had higher chances of demonstrating critical thinking and that they would adopt different approaches when dealing with various issues (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).
Kuhn’s perception
This study has a bearing on Kuhn’s perceptions about the development of scientific theories and his arguments have been analyzed as follows. Kuhn was one of the people who analyzed scientific history. His work was significant in philosophical studies among other disciplines (Kuhn, 1996). Kuhn conducted elaborate research on scientific inventions and developments. He often criticized how people understood and interpreted scientific development and information (Kuhn, 1996). His arguments are drawn from the origin of scientific studies (Kuhn, 1996). Kuhn argues that there is a great difference between older and new scientific theories. For instance, the model of scientific research can not explain the past scientific research effectively (Kuhn, 1996).
Changes in scientific theories do not necessarily involve changing a particular theory. New theories are not just simple advancements of the early scientific theories. They are developed out of current thoughts and perceptions of people about what goes on in their environment (Kuhn, 1996). Kuhn believes that the methods used in verifying theories that conflict is not sufficient because the people who try to correct conflicting scientific theories are their proponents. Hence they can not bring meaningful changes to theories (Kuhn, 1996). In addition to this, observations that are meant to disapprove a theory will probably be found in the theories that they use to make a comparison (Kuhn, 1996). This would also not be good enough when analyzing the authenticity of scientific theories.
The arguments put across by Kuhn have faced some criticisms from some scholars who did not agree with his ideas and scientific explanations. For example, his work has been questioned for failing to make a clear distinction between sciences and humanities (Kuhn, 1996). This is because his explanations of scientific developments were not based on any meaningful scientific approach and methodology (Kuhn, 1996). Some logical positivists have also questioned his ‘’humanism’’ concept when he analyses the nature of scientific development (Kuhn, 1996). They argue that by him using this concept in analyzing scientific theories he had lost focus. His work was also criticized for being Eurocentric (Kuhn, 1996). In this case, it has been argued that his work did not recognize the contribution of the Chinese and Arabs toward scientific development (Kuhn, 1996).
Changes in politics and society have been explained concerning Kuhn’s arguments (Kuhn, 1996). Although his arguments may not have a lot of bearing on scientific principles, he worked hard to enhance the meaning of terminologies such as ‘’paradigm’’ and ‘’paradigm shift’’ which are currently being used in socio-political and economic frameworks. Kuhn commonly believed that how we understand the events that take place in the world depends on how an individual perceives them (Kuhn, 1996). In this case, how we perceive the world determines what we see (Kuhn, 1996). This happens because people adopt different strategies when handling different tasks (Collins, 2001). For example, some people may use one approach in solving a problem while others may use several approaches to solve a problem.
Conclusion
The above discussion indicates that continuous research in epistemological studies is imperative due to several reasons. For example, epistemological studies can be used as a framework within which improvement of higher education can be achieved (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). For example, it can act as a guideline when drafting a curriculum that is favorable to the learners’ educational needs. A person is also able to develop critical thinking by using epistemological studies (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). This would in turn help such a person to develop good problem-solving skills that can help him or her in meeting the set goals effectively (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). More importantly, epistemological studies can help a person to improve his communication skills hence he or she can have a good relationship with people in the society (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002)
References
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York: Harpercollins Publishers.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structured scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schommer-Alkins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemology, beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. Journal of Psychology, vol. 36 (1) , 1-20.
The qualitative research process is a multifaceted sequence of scientific decision-making that predetermines the overall approach to the issue under investigation and the outcomes of a study. The choice of epistemological, ontological, and methodological paradigms significantly influences and often limits the scope of possible tools for conducting research according to the planned aims and goals. Therefore, unlike in quantitative research, in qualitative inquiry, a researcher’s preference for particular approaches might hinder the objectivity of the findings and impose a higher risk for bias. However, the awareness of such characteristic features of the qualitative research process and the influential role of the researcher’s positionality allows for predicting the bias and addressing it effectively for more reliability and credibility of the research. In this researcher lense paper, I will introduce the epistemological and ontological paradigms I prefer to use in my qualitative research and the anticipated ways the alignment with them might affect the issues under investigation and research findings.
Within the perspective of epistemological paradigm choices, a researcher is commonly inclined to one way of assuming knowledge or another. According to Walliman (2011), epistemology is “the theory of knowledge, especially about its validation and the methods used” (p. 16). Among the options available among the epistemological paradigms, I am most aligned with constructivism since it provides an opportunity for integrating one’s experience into the research. As defined by Dezin and Lincoln (2013), constructivism falls under the category of relativist ontological paradigm and subjectivist epistemological paradigm, which address “local and specific constructed and co-constructed realities” as well as “created findings” (p. 202). Therefore, constructivism is a paradigm that relies on individual constructions when defining the nature of knowledge, which particularly resonates with my vision of proper conducting of qualitative research.
In particular, the choice of constructivist grounded theory as a preferred theoretical perspective aligns with my research lens. Since constructivism is inductive and necessitates an individual’s active participation in interpreting the investigated phenomena, the grounded theory complements the methodological opportunities and allows for researching the changes in a phenomenon under the influence of the altered conditions. Overall, as stated by Willis (2007), qualitative research is particularly dependent on the inquirer’s perspective because one is “devoted to a particular research method, it is often because that method is an expression of their paradigm” (p. 147). Thus, my preference for constructivist grounded theory is the expression of my paradigm.
Within the context of researcher positionality, constructivism sets a basis for possible subjectivity and bias due to a high level of likelihood of influencing the studied phenomenon by personal attitudes. As stated by Dezin and Lincoln (2013), the inquirer posture in constructivism implies that a researcher is a “passionate participant” as a facilitator of multivoiced reconstruction (p. 2016). Indeed, I tend to incorporate my personal experience and accumulated knowledge to participate in the study I am conducting, not merely observing the issue from a distance. I am likely to assimilate with the investigated issue and apply the attitudes and ideas I possess to examine the issues better and retrieve scientific findings. In particular, race, cultural background, and individual experience play a significant role in conducting qualitative research (Milner IV, 2007). As a Latino individual coming from a family of immigrants and living in a minority community, I have witnessed many struggles that my peers faced when trying to obtain opportunities for a good education and life. My journey is also challenging since I have become a college student in an environment where graduation from school is not very common. Having observed the difficulties that underrepresented individuals encounter, I am inclined to act in the direction of improving the opportunities for vulnerable populations by motivating them. This vision aligns with the grounded theory that reality is interpretive and constructed of subjective ideas that allow for contextualizing and interpreting phenomena to identify theoretical explanations.
The seemingly prejudiced approach to interpreting ethnicity and race issues might incline my so-called ‘insider’ view toward bias in the research. Indeed, due to the reflexivity in qualitative research, my assumptions might hinder the objectivity of findings (Berger, 2015). However, the awareness of my positionality allows me to address the potential for bias and direct my interpretive and constructivist paradigms toward the purposes of advocacy. In such a manner, the goals of my research will be effectively achieved and the findings mean.
In summation, the identified epistemological and ontological paradigms demonstrated that my personal experience, educational history, and overall alignment with the constructivist approach to the qualitative research process define my researcher’s lens. The constructivist grounded theory allows for interpreting reality by applying my personal experience. I am aware that such an approach might produce opportunities for bias and hinder the authenticity of inquiry. To eliminate the risk of bias, I will exercise reflection throughout the research process to ensure the objective presentation of data and discussion of findings. A well-defined plan of action and awareness of possible bias will allow for producing reliable and credible research results.
References
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
Dezin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2013). The landscape of qualitative research. Sage.
Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-400.
Walliman, N. (2011). Research theory, Research methods: the basics. Routledge.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research interpretive and critical approaches. Sage
Researchers ground their investigations on reflection of what they perceive and know about the social environment they are in. Epistemology and ontology are some of the fundamental principles that govern how a researcher conducts his or her research. This is because what the researcher knows reveals the persons they are since they act based on their internal world. Depending on the epistemological and ontological influence on the researcher, he or she chooses either a qualitative or quantitative approaches.
The qualitative approaches are ideal in educational research and the researcher’s knowledge and knowledge of others are inseparable to this approach. As a result, the phrase “the researcher you are is the person you are”, comes into light because in accordance with what the researcher knows, he identifies a gap and the most suitable methodology.
Epistemological and Ontological Perspectives
According to Johnson & Duberley (2000), epistemology is the knowledge of, or it is about knowledge. Thayer-Bacon (1996) quotes Kant’s idea that what one knows depends on the external and internal world. As a result, she postulates that it becomes impossible to know the actual truth since what an individual sees as “truth or knowledge” is inherently flawed by a person’s social constructions (Thayer-Bacon, 1996).
This is because individuals are born in a certain times defined by certain events, and in certain places and cultures, and therefore, no one is a neutral being. This has been reinforced by David Hustler (cited in Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p. 18), who states that one cannot enter into a field with a blank mind. There is usually that knowledge and truth that he or she possesses and either wants to oppose or enhance it.
I tend to agree with the above propositions. Each individual possesses a certain kind of knowledge that he or she obtains from the culture and society that he or she lives in, not to mention the experiences encountered. This applies to the statement that the researcher you are is the person you are since the knowledge and truth possessed from the surrounding will influence the researcher’s way of doing things.
A researcher is the person she or he is because he or she tends to delve into fields that ring at the back of his or her mind, or those which he or she has some bit of knowledge about. However, I agree with Popper, who felt that it is hard to gain absolute truth or knowledge.
When research is carried out at a certain time, the knowledge established cannot be regarded as the absolute truth since when the same research is conducted at the same place but at a different time, a different kind of knowledge and truth will be established. Therefore, one cannot say that truth or knowledge is absolute but as a researcher, I try to understand the world that am living in by gaining knowledge that is applicable to that particular time.
Ontology on the other hand involves nature of being, reality, and existence (Freimuth, 2009). It is therefore a field that focuses on knowledge of/about one’s or another’s existence. Sowa later broadened the initial definition associated with Ontology as devised by Aristotle to include the study of categories of existence (Sowa, retrieved 2008). The underpinning of ontology in educational research is comparable to the role of culture in understanding mathematical proof from a teaching-learning perspective (Balacheff, 2002).
Both ontology and epistemology therefore involve the essence of knowledge, truth, and being (Freimuth, 2009). In addition, they both aim at demystifying how educational research is influenced by social realities, or rather what we think social realities are to help in easily understanding the educational research process.
A modified and easier definition of ontology is the study of what individuals knows, or what they think they know. On the other hand, epistemology is the study concerned with how individuals achieve knowledge, or how they think they achieve that knowledge (Freimuth, 2009).
Ways by which a researcher’s knowledge and truth influences his own research are many. This is because a researcher tends to carry out research under a reflective microscope because the researcher’s beliefs about knowledge and truth contaminate the research. Hustler concurs with this rationale because he says that human beings live in a social world that they seek to understand through research and there is need to take into account the interpretation and authorial position of researchers (cited in Somekn & Lewin, 2005, p. 17).
As a way of example, in a study that aims at identifying how socio-economic status influences performance of students, the researcher’s internal and external worlds greatly influence this research. To begin with, the research stems from the researcher’s internal world in that he or she seeks to understand why students perform they way in school based on the truth that he or she possesses regarding student’s performance: epistemological perspective.
The desire to focus on socioeconomic status mainly stems from what the researcher has experienced from the environment: the ontological distinction. Epistemology is further applied to establish how socioeconomic status influences academic performance. According to Kuhn (1963), how a researcher views the world dictates his or her means of researching it thereby describing the person that he or she is.
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
Quantitative and qualitative approaches are classified in terms of data used, method of analysis, logic employed, approach to explanation, type of explanation, and for some, in terms of the presumed underlying paradigm. Quantitative approach/method (ology) involves the handling of numerical data and use of statistical methods to analyze this data (Moody, 2002).
The choice of method to use is governed from an ontological standpoint in relation to the research questions (Borrego, Douglas, & Amelink, 2009). The qualitative approach aims at establishing new knowledge, which would otherwise not be gained if an existing theory were imposed on the data. As a result, qualitative approaches are inductive, not deductive as compared with the quantitative approaches.
Quantitative methods are applied when aiming at verifying an already formulated theory. It applies to objective studies, and is referred to as scientific research methods. Experimental research and surveys are good examples of quantitative methodology. These are different from a qualitative approach of educational research because they are independent of the researcher’s experiences and knowledge.
Since the quantitative approach entails a view into the positivist world, a researcher who employs this research approach is perceived to be a positivist in nature. This is very much applicable in the current world where some individuals are very good in numbers while others are good narrators.
Therefore, a positivist researcher will make use of objective observation and take precise measurements for statistical analysis. In educational research, the quantitative approach can be employed in a research that seeks to establish the number of students enrolled from a particular cultural setting.
However, at a glance, one can detect the limitation imposed by this kind of research method (Houlette, et al., 2004). This is usually the main setback while using quantitative approaches in educational research; they tend to limit the complexity of social sciences like education. At times, the tools used are too complex for the students to understand and therefore, the eventual result is inaccurate information.
Qualitative approach on the other hand is referred to as humanistic research methods. This approach entails qualitative/textual data such as that which is obtained from case studies and observations/surveys. Qualitative data analysis methods are used to analyze data (Moody, 2002). The qualitative methods are best used while carrying out research on human behaviour, or related subjective spheres where educational research is part (Richards, 2003).
Since as earlier stated, the approach to be used by a researcher is dependent on his or her way of understanding reality: ontology. Educational research is a social science that seeks to understand the natural world where people live thus employs the interpretive paradigm. Therefore, educational researchers employing qualitative approaches to research can be described as interpretivists.
The qualitative approach is rather friendly because of the available variety techniques befitting to different situations, and individuals. The qualitative approaches tend to capture the detailed and comprehensive world of social sciences thus, the most ideal for educational research. In addition, it allows the students to give their views in a natural form without alteration thereby; the researcher obtains first-hand information.
The two approaches however are preferred by some researchers. Such researchers are versatile, a phenomenon that strongly faces major criticism. However, this is in accordance with what Moody states, “in practice no research is probably fully quantitative or qualitative, but rather a mixture of both” (Moody, 2002). Somekh & Lewin (2005) substantiate this further because they believe that the use of both approaches is complementary rather than competitive.
According to Bazeley (2004), the use of numbers requires interpretation, and counting is employed where textual data is in use. This demonstrates that variables cannot be articulately categorized, and processes can be interpreted through a variety of ways like numeric analysis or narrative. This leads to the acceptability of mixed methods since clear-cut lines cannot be drawn.
In educational research, a researcher will find him/herself employing both the quantitative and qualitative methods to gain knowledge like when grouping responses. The proposition that a researcher you are is the person you are in that the approach used is based on the techniques that a researcher intends to use. As an example, if a researcher is an interpretivist at heart, he or she may apply techniques such as focus group discussions, interviews, diaries, or field notes.
Ethnography
Ethnography originated from the need to have the voices of minority groups heard. In ancient UK schools, ethnography bent on exploring the classroom world, capturing the perspectives of both students and teachers, not to mention generating rich case studies. Ethnography focused on giving a tale, mostly of the less visible members in the society.
Early ethnographic studies tried to capture the natural world of the participants. Ethnography has focused on rich details of cultural scenes, what has been referred to as ‘thick description’ by Geertz (1988). It is rich and with thick descriptions because it entails a real encounter with a traveller’s journey. In the early times, ethnographers stayed in the community of study for 2 to 3 years learning the as many domains of the community.
More recently, ethnographic studies have focused on enabling the voices of the participants to be heard on their own accord, and not through the lens of the researcher (Fine and Weiss, 1998). Contemporary ethnographers spend short periods of time in the community of study, and focus on one dimension of the community. In addition, recent focus is on solving community problems rather than learning about the community.
Ethnography is a relevant method in educational research, especially in the contemporary times. It also resonates with me as a researcher. To begin with, it captures the actual daily lives of the participants as they unfold over a defined period of time.
Secondly, one gets to have first-hand personal interaction with the participants. Therefore, the likelihood of biasness from the participant during data collection is very minimal. It takes up a mixed method approach, and is comprehensive enough to include the various study elements of social sciences.
Ethnography is a qualitative kind of research. Ethnographic methods include participant observation, researcher reflection/journaling, face-to-face interviews, and analysis of archival records. These methods are recommended in a majority of the research methods books on educational research (Johnson, & Christensen, 2008). As earlier mentioned, ethnography has focused on solving community problems.
Therefore, it resonates with the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of educational research because it relies both on the knowledge a researcher already has, and this knowledge influences the research process.
Regardless of the amount of time a researcher spends observing and studying a particular community, his or her interpretations and cultural orientations tend to influence the research process. Therefore, in a study on how socioeconomic status influences students’ performance, the researcher interprets the findings commensurate with what he or she knows.
Interviews and Focus Groups
Focus group interviews are much preferred than individual interviews because they create a friendlier atmosphere since they are employed in a group where individuals are from the same socio-cultural background. As a result, they are encouraged to open up and talk freely in relation to the topic.
Focus groups were initially developed in academic research when Emory Bogardus in 1926 used focus groups in social psychology to come up with social distance scale (Wilkinson, 2004). Since the mid twentieth century, focus groups were employed in market research (Munday, 2006).
They have even gained more popularity in academic research in the fields of health and social sciences. The recent increase in popularity of focus groups is because they are easy and fast to conduct (Kroll, Barbour, & Harris, 2007). Focus groups are a means through which a researcher can learn the comprehensive structure of a community at a cheap rate in terms of time and money.
One can get the views of different people at a time. In addition, recently the use of focus groups has broadened to the extent that it relates to different social groups, development research, and cuts across cultures. This has been attributed to its collective nature and may be befitting to individuals who cannot express their thoughts and ideas clearly. It also acts as a source of collective power to the marginalized people.
The researcher acts as a driver of the focus group discussion since he or she guides the generation of data based on the truth that he or she seeks to discover. Audio-tapes have been an important development in focus group discussions. Relying solely on what the participants say may lead to missing some vital information. The tape recorder enables the researcher to capture the focus group on the spot.
The focus group methodology and interviews fall within the category of qualitative research. This is because they deal with textual data as they tend to collect data on attitudes, perceptions, behaviour, or opinions of the participants in relation to the research study topic (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007).
Depending on who the researcher is, he or she will choose a research method that is in agreement with him as a person. A researcher who is a keen listener will prefer to include interviews in his methodology. In addition, the researcher will choose to carry out a study that is in his or her area of interest, or something that has really been disturbing his/her mind. The intentions of, as well as the known nature of participants by a researcher draw him or her into using the focus group discussion.
Since there are various disciplines in educational research as well as an array of research topics to choose from but, due to epistemological and ontological influence, the researcher will carry out a research on that topic that he or she is aware of and has identified a gap. He or she goes further to identify a suitable epistemological approach to filling in that gap of knowledge.
This method (focus group method) is applicable in my proposal of summative environment because I will gain a comprehensive understanding of the attitudes, opinions and perceptions of different cultures. This is a very fundamental aspect of learning that should be understood because the socio-cultural setting of the family/development is attributable the learning of the students. In addition, students will talk more freely through the interactive groups.
It will also capture the various dimensions of social science in terms of beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes. The students are the ones who know best where their problem in relation to performance originates from.
The use of focus groups makes it possible for the students to feel at ease, unlike if it were an individual interview as the students may restrict some information. Ethnography is an ideal method to use but in relation to my summative assessment proposal, it is not the best as I would be prying into the privacy of my students’ family, making them feel somewhat uncomfortable.
Conclusion
Educational research makes use of a qualitative approach. The theoretical perspective of a study plays a fundamental role in determining the kind of approach to be used in explaining reality associated with a particular epistemology (Crotty, 2003). Depending on ontology, a researcher is able to come up with the right epistemological approach. However, the kind of epistemological approach selected by a researcher is influenced by his or her own-self as a person as discussed in the content of this paper.
The ontological factor leads to the formulation of research questions, which are answered by the chosen epistemological approach. A positivist researcher will choose a qualitative research method while a non-positivist/interpretive researcher will choose a qualitative method. There is the possibility of using mixed methods such as ethnography when both numerical and textual data are collected. Ethnography is one such method.
References
Balacheff, N. (2002). The Researcher Epistemology: A Deadlock for Educational Research on Proof. Web.
Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research. In Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards. Eds. Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp141-156.
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. & Amelink, C. (2009). Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 53-66.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. 6th ed. London and New York: Routledge.
Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fine, M., & Weis, L. (1998). Crime stories: A critical look through race, ethnicity, and gender. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11 (3), 435– 459.
Freimuth, H. (2009). Educational Research: An Introduction to Basic Concepts and Terminology. UGRU Journal, 8, 1-11.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Houlette, A., Gaertner, S., Johnson, K., Banker, B. and Riek, B. (2004). Developing a More Inclusive Social Identity: An Elementary School Intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 1.
Hustler, D. (2005). Chapter 1: Ethnography. In Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, P. & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding Management Research. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Kroll, T., Barbour, R., & Harris, J. (2007). Using focus group in disability research. Qualitative Health Research, 17 (5), 690-698.
Kuhn, T. S. (1963). The essential tension: tradition and innovation in scientific research. In Taylor, C. & Barron, F. Eds. Scientific creativity: it’s recognition and development (pp. 341-154). N.Y.: Wiley.
Moody, D. (2002). Empirical research methods. Web.
Munday, J. (2006). Identity in focus: The use of focus groups to study the construction of collective identity. Sociology, 40 (1), 89-105.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. Eds. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Thayer-Bacon, B. (1996). An examination and redescription of epistemology. Paper Retrieved from ERIC database (ED 401279).
Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus groups: A feminist method. In Hesse-Biber, S. & Yaiser, M. Eds. Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 271–295). New York: Oxford University Press.
Real estate management involves the operational control and responsibility bestowed in an organization or an individual person over some given assets.
A real estate manager needs to apply science, pseudoscience and ideology of the day to day operations so as to achieve their desired goals.
Successful real estate managers require epistemological knowledge relevant to the estate in order to execute their mandate as well as responsibilities successfully. Epistemology is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge about a particular field.
The managers need to understand the link between empirical, rhetoric and social constructivism in order to be successful. Pseudoscience is usually the rhetorical part of management where the managers depend on their guts to make decisions.
The nature of pseudoscience is untested and is a limited way of gaging things, although it is very important in real estate valuation and development and also when buying new estates on the market (Kvanvig 2008).
Social constructionism applies ideologies that are as a result of the society. It requires the real estate manager to jointly adhere to the social setting of a given society in order to achieve effective communication.
Thus, it implies that one will not communicate elaborately with a given group of people without prior knowledge of their social environment.
The ideology also relates to the laws of the state the real estate manager intends to have their property, the manager should at all times ensure they understand the state and county laws that directly affect the real estate business.
Real estate managers apply the concept of ideology to deal directly with tenants who belong to a certain social class and before entering into managerial contracts, real estate managers are required to understand the social setting of the location of the property to be managed. This will adequately prepare the managers on the kind of clients to expect.
Prior knowledge of expected tenants will subsequently help the real estate managers prepare on the best communication methodology to employ in dealing with the same tenants.
Thus, it is important for real estate managers to carry out a thorough scrutiny and assessment of the social setting before finally agreeing to take over as managers of the property in discussion.
Managers who plunge into estate management without prior knowledge end up in constant wrangles with tenants. Sometimes the worst scenario may occur; no tenants at all.
Science is often considered a recipe for finding the ‘truth’ about some the issue of real estate management is a business venture and subsequently involves a huge capital investment.
A real estate developer takes over a dilapidated building and renovates it back to life before finally leasing it out to tenants. All these activities require a critical asset valuation and budget allocation to avoid non-profitable involvements as well as good background knowledge of real estate law.
Scientific knowledge will help the manager formulate hypotheses and work on them to ascertain the viability of the contract.
For instance, real estate managers dealing with buildings require scientific knowledge on the lifespan of such buildings as well as susceptibility to natural catastrophes like flooding and lightning strikes.
Science knowledge thus helps estate managers to ascertain their willingness to enter certain contracts (Shermer & Gould 2002).
Finally, real estate managers also require knowledge on pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is defined as concepts that resemble science but are not science since they cannot be proven by evidence. Pseudoscience facts are Systematic and abstract just like science, but they lack Intuitive hypotheses.
Pseudoscience is often confused for cultural beliefs. For instance, a building may be prone to destruction by strong wind due to poor architectural design making it be linked to cultural phenomena.
Pseudoscience ideas are taken naturally and self-evidently true, but in real sense, they are social constructs like a conspiracy theory (Shermer & Gould 2002).
Therefore, real estate managers need information on such like incidences to ascertain the extent of information provided in relation to the condition of the asset to be managed. Pseudoscience may also be an important source of knowledge when analysing the social inclination of a given society.
It helps reveal the cultural perspectives of a given society and their views in relation to properties present in specific areas.
Real estate management has undergone several positive evaluations and is currently rated among the most lucrative managerial ventures. It is quite evident that epistemological knowledge is prudent in the good relations between the estate managers, the asset and the tenant.
The knowledge thus becomes a compulsory acquisition and a necessity for any real estate management firm that expects to survive the competition.
In conclusion, the understanding of these principles is relevant in the acquisition of the appropriate data, proof, evidence, facts and hypothesis that aid in real-life practice as a real estate manager.
Thus, a manager with the above knowledge is able to understand how to formulate strategies, ensure sustainability, and oversee proper building maintenance through professional practice as well as property development.
Reference List
Kvanvig, J 2008, The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shermer, M & Gould, J 2002, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, Holt Paperbacks, New York.
Business researches involve the collection of a variety of information. As a result, the researchers should be familiar with the different frameworks and assumptions that guide their research process. For instance, there is an epistemology framework and the metatheoretical assumption of positivism versus interpretivism that the labeling, realistic group conflict and taking into the community researches have tried to apply.
Epistemological framework
Becker and Niehaves (2007) provide an epistemology framework with an underlying concept of breaking down epistemological questions that are imperative to researches information systems. In this framework, five questions arise and they all concern cognition. The first question is about the meaning of a cognition object from an ontological aspect that analyzes what and how a research object is (Becker & Niehaves, 2007).
According to ontological realism where researchers believe in the real independent world that is free from cognition, there is a possibility of reduction of all entities to matter. On the other hand, in ontological idealism researchers believe that cognition has some reality thus mental entities depend on human consciousness. Lastly, Kantianism researchers attempt to differentiate between ontological realism and idealism thus they assume that both dependent and independent entities exist.
The second question concerns the association between cognition and cognition object (Becker & Niehaves, 2007). The epistemological realism who operates under the same assumption as ontological realism believes that there is a possibility of an objective cognition that is independent of reality. On the contrary, constructivism believes that the subject determines the existence of the association between cognition and cognition object. Additionally, Becker & Niehaves (2007) states that the third question concerns the acquisition of true cognition. According to correspondence truth theory, true proclamations match with facts. However, the consensus truth theory believes that a true declaration is the one accepted by the majority. Furthermore, the semantic truth theory deems that a true situation is different from the object and the language.
The fourth question regards the origin of cognition (Becker & Niehaves, 2007). Empiricism reckons that it comes from experience while rationalism believes that its origin is intellect. Nonetheless, Kantianism believes that cognition comes from a personal experience together with his intellect. Finally, the last question is about the method that an individual can use to acquire cognition (Becker & Niehaves, 2007). To begin with, inductivism assumes that cognition moves from a part to a whole. On the other hand, deductivism deems that cognition is from the whole to a part. Conversely, Hermeneutics believes that prior understanding influences a person’s cognition.
The relationship of epistemology framework to Dr. Weber’s concern
The epistemology framework relates to Dr. Weber’s concern of metatheoretical assumptions where researchers apply the positivism and interpretivism approaches. In relation to ontology, Dr. Weber states that positivism researchers believe that people and the reality are distinct while interpretivism researchers argue that people cannot be separated from reality.
This assumption is similar to the epistemology framework where ontological realism and idealism researchers portray the same views respectively (Weber, 2004). Additionally, Dr. Weber explains that in epistemology assumption, positivism researchers deem that a person’s cognition is far beyond the reality while interpretivism researchers squabble that cognition is through a person’s experience. This postulation is analogous to rationalism and empiricism who possess the same beliefs correspondingly.
Moreover, Dr. Weber affirms that positivism researchers reckon that the research object possesses qualities that do not depend on the researcher. However, interpretivism thinks that the research object depends on the researcher’s experience. Accordingly, in epistemology framework, deductivism and inductivism hold the same assumptions as positivism and interpretivism in that order. Moreover, the correspondence truth theory described in the epistemology framework resembles the same truth theory in the metatheoretical assumption of positivism researchers (Weber, 2004). Additionally, positivism researchers believe that collected data measure the reality and this has a relation to the epistemology framework where the consensus truth theory believes that a true declaration is the one accepted by the majority.
Application of epistemology framework to theoretical explanations
Ashforth & Humphrey (1997) stated that labeling has an imperative impact on an individual, a group and an organization. This is because labeling has an influence on a person’s cognition. On the one hand, it results in an individual producing quality service that leads to organization prosperity. On the other hand, it increases the possibility of conflict among employees. In line with the epistemology framework, labeling operates under constructivism, deductivism and consensus truth theory (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997).
According to constructivism, the cognition of a labeled person will determine whether he will assume the behavior associated with that label. In case he ignores the label a conflict can occur. Nonetheless, deductivism believes that the possibility of a person assuming behavior associated with a certain label is very high because the label comes from the majority. To emphasize this, the consensus truth theory believes that a true statement is from the majority. As a result, labeled people always mold their personalities to fit the label because they believe that the label possesses the truth.
When designing an electronic system for use by the community for knowledge dispersion, the community members need to be fully engaged in that process (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). This is because these people hold values and beliefs that can make them reject or accept the system. For instance, hermeneutics believe that people’s understanding of a phenomenon is manipulated by an understanding of the whole concept (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). Thus, people should be involved in an innovative process. However, ontological realism who believes in an independent world is bound to fail if he invents something without the people’s participation. This is because many people believe in ontological idealism, which respects and caters to human consciousness.
The realistic group conflict theory affirms that psychology research should involve findings from various investigations (Jay, 1993). This is because the epistemology framework states that the truth comes from the majority and the world depends on the conciseness of the people. In this theory, the analysis of the group is from a holistic perspective (Jay, 1993). This is different from the epistemology framework where epistemological realism believes that an object of cognition does not depend on reality. Additionally, people derive their cognition from their experience and perception of the world.
Why the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism has persisted
The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism has persisted because different researchers use different assumptions to conduct their research. This is due to the diverse nature of the researches hence not all researchers can focus on either positivism or interpretivism. Furthermore, researchers may need to concentrate on both sides of the metatheoretical assumptions. Therefore, the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism will persist so long as the differences between them continue to exist as well as the differences in research types.
To begin with, the labeling theory focuses on both the positivism and interpretivism aspect of the metatheoretical assumptions. For instance, it applies the interpretivism aspect that there is no distinction between an individual and the reality (Weber, 2004). This is the reason why a person assumes the personality of a label because the label comes from the world and an individual is part of the world. Conversely, positivism appears in the label theory when information is a gauge of reality (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997). For this reason, people believe in the label because it results from the collected information.
Additionally, the research about taking into the community employs both sides of the metatheoretical assumption. On the positivism aspect, the researcher believes in content analysis. As a result, an analysis of the community is imperative before any innovation is established (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). On the other hand, the researcher applies the epistemological interpretivism assumption by believing that people’s knowledge is through experience (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). This is the reason why the community members have to be involved because they have an experience of what is best for them.
Finally, realistic group conflict theory concentrate on positivism. As a result, the researcher conducts various investigations from different people because he believes that information measures reality (Jay, 1993). Additionally, the assumption of reliability is through the performance of a variety of tests because the researcher believes that reality is beyond human cognition and it depends on tests and measurements.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the epistemology framework has a great relationship with the metatheoretical assumption of positivism and interpretivism. As a result, various researchers apply this framework and assumptions during the research process. For instance, labeling, realistic group conflict and taking into the community researches have applied this framework and the assumptions. Lastly, due to the variation in positivism and interpretivism, the rhetoric has persisted and will continue to persist.
References
Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1997). The Ubiquity and Potency of Labeling in Organisations. Journal of the Institute of the Management Science , 8 (1), 43-56.
Becker, J., & Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemiological Perspective on IS Research: A Framework for Analysing and Systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information System Journal , 17 (1), 197-214.
Boland, R., & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Community of Knowing. Organisation Science , 6 (4), 350-369.
Jay, J. (1993). Realistic Group conflict Theory: A Review and Evaluation of the Theoretical and Emperical Literature. Psychological Record , 43 (3), 395-410.
Weber, R. (2004). The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism. MIS Quarterly , 28 (1), 3-12.
For centuries, humans have attempted to understand what constitutes knowledge and how it can be achieved. Knowledge, or information and facts about the world and objects in it, serves as the basis for any human activity. If one relies on inaccurate or incomplete knowledge, it can lead to fatal and dangerous miscalculations and failures, so the quest for the right knowledge is a natural response to avoid such situations.
However, different philosophical schools of thought have put the concept of knowledge in perspective, with some going as far as to claim that no knowledge can be achieved with complete certainty. Nevertheless, a French philosopher René Descartes has managed to develop a proposition that can be used as a starting point to make further inferences about the world. The present paper analyzes Descartes’ epistemology in the light of the tripartite theory of knowledge and uses a science fiction film The Matrix to understand Descartes’ influence on the human understanding of reality.
Knowledge has been traditionally divided into three types: acquaintance, procedural, and propositional knowledge. Philosophy as a discipline is primarily concerned with understanding and defining propositional, or descriptive, the knowledge that serves as the basis for exploration of the world. Importantly, knowledge is clearly distinguished from belief: it is possible for someone to believe a proposition that does not constitute knowledge because beliefs are not necessarily grounded in factual information.
The tripartite theory of knowledge links it closely to belief: for a person to know something, they must also believe it. However, the scope of the concept of knowledge is much broader, as belief alone is not sufficient. Knowledge includes two more criteria: the proposition needs to be true, and one needs to have sufficient justification for believing it – thus, knowledge is often referred to as “justified true belief” (Turri 248).
It is useful to think of the tripartite theory in terms of people’s beliefs as to whether the Earth is flat or round. The majority opinion in the Middle Ages was that the Earth was flat: people surely believed it, and, based on their observations and experiences, they were justified to do so. However, since the Earth is, in fact, not flat, this proposition fails to meet all three criteria. If someone in that era believed that the Earth was round because, for instance, the Sun also appears round, they would have made a lucky guess without having sufficient justification for such a belief. On the other hand, the contemporary people’s knowledge satisfies all three criteria: it is a true belief with sufficient justification, as people have seen the Earth from the airplane or on space pictures.
However, it was not long until the tripartite theory of knowledge has been challenged by other thinkers, especially philosophical skeptics. In particular, Cartesian skepticism concerns itself with epistemology and the possibility of attaining adequate justification for any proposition. Ultimately, all knowledge is derived on the basis of the evidence presented by human senses. However, it is possible, although seemingly unlikely, that humans and their senses are being deceived by a malicious omnipotent entity (Bridges, Kolodny, and Wong 54).
Since it is impossible to either prove or reject this possibility on the basis of the available epistemological tools, complete justification is unattainable. This notion found a reflection in contemporary popular culture – for instance, in the movie The Matrix. The protagonist of the film Thomas Anderson, also known as Neo, lives in a computer-simulated reality called the Matrix. For all Anderson and everyone around him knows, their perceptual experiences serve as sufficient justification to believe that the world as they know it is real. As Morpheus explains to Anderson: “It [the Matrix] is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work when you go to church when you pay your taxes” (The Matrix).
Thus, if the Matrix is so omnipresent, one will never gain any evidence of its deceptive features from their senses. The Matrix thus demonstrates that human experience, however consistent and continuous, is an unreliable epistemological tool to extract information about the world. Since people cannot disprove they are not being deceived by an external force, they can never achieve absolute certainty or have complete justification for any proposition.
Even though one might dismiss The Matrix as an entertaining science fiction film not related to reality, it actually sheds light on an important philosophical issue. As a matter of fact, a Medieval philosopher René Descartes was concerned with the same question – that is, the attainability of absolute certainty. He details his metaphysical quest in his Meditations on First Philosophy when the Meditator reflects about the nature and origin of all the false propositions he has ever believed in.
Over the course of the First Meditation, Descartes comes to understand that everything can be called into doubt. Composite objects can be deceiving because of one’s senses or dreaming experiences. The Meditator initially believes that simple things such as size and shape that form the basis for mathematics are certain and not subject to doubt. However, he ultimately arrives at the conclusion that God, being omnipotent, can make even mathematical propositions false (Descartes 43).
However, Descartes was not satisfied with such a conclusion and continued his search until he has reached one proposition that he believed he could be certain of. While objects and ideas are subject to change and probable deception, there is one thing that remains constant regardless of external circumstances – one’s existence evident from one’s ability to think and be deceived: “But what then am I? A thinking thing. And what is that? Something that doubts understands affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and also senses and has mental images” (Descartes 49). For Descartes, this is the only proposition that cannot be called into doubt, and that can be used as a starting point for making more complex observations about the world.
The proposition developed by Descartes, which has come to be widely known as “I think, therefore I am,” serves as the basis for contemporary Western philosophy. Radical skeptics, who doubt the existence of absolute knowledge or propositions, have challenged Descartes’ claim about the certainty of one’s cognitive facilities (Hetherington 100). However, for all intents and purposes, one’s mind, however deceptive, certainly serves as a proof of one’s existence.
As a matter of fact, Neo could have come to a similar conclusion in The Matrix, even before taking the red pill. When he started noticing discrepancies and inconsistencies in the world as he has always known it, every single notion that he has ever held was shattered. However, regardless of whether Neo is inside or outside of the Matrix, one thing remains constant – he can question, doubt, and think thanks to his mind, even if it is difficult to attain absolute certainty about any event or object in his universe. While a situation depicted in The Matrix seems to be entirely impossible, it actually occurs more often than people would imagine, although not on such a major dystopian scale. The film is often compared to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, where prisoners are chained facing a blank wall on which they observe different shadows (Sanders 14).
However, once prisoners are freed, they come to realize that what they have always perceived as reality is, in fact, merely a shadow of it. Similarly, the reality that every single human being lives in is constrained by the mental model of the world that their brains construct based on their experiences with it.
Thus, the abstract philosophical problems concerning epistemology are of direct relevance to one’s life experiences. While the possibility of universal indubitable knowledge is still an unresolved question, the theory put forward by Descartes serves as a solid foundation for one to make assumptions about the world. Understanding what constitutes reality has become a subject of several science fiction films, such as The Matrix, dealing with dystopian models of the world controlled by omnipotent supernatural forces. However, a philosophical analysis of the film suggests that it is grounded in quite common limitations of one’s ability to perceive the world. Therefore, according to Descartes, one’s cognitive facilities are the only constant proof of one’s existence, regardless of other circumstances.
Works Cited
Bridges, Jason, Niko Kolodny, and Wai-Hung Wong. The Possibility of Philosophical Understanding: Reflections on the Thought of Barry Stroud, Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy: with Selections from the Objections and Replies, Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Hetherington, Stephen. Epistemology: The Key Thinkers. 1st ed. 2012. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. Print.
Sanders, Steven. The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film, Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2008. Print.
The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Warner Brothers, 1999. DVD.