epistemological framework qualitative research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research

Affiliation.

1 The University of Sydney, Australia.
PMID: 18000071
DOI: 10.1177/1049732307306927

In this article, the authors clarify a framework for qualitative research, in particular for evaluating its quality, founded on epistemology, methodology, and method. They define these elements and discuss their respective contributions and interrelationships. Epistemology determines and is made visible through method, particularly in the participant- researcher relationship, measures of research quality, and form, voice, and representation in analysis and writing. Epistemology guides methodological choices and is axiological. Methodology shapes and is shaped by research objectives, questions, and study design. Methodologies can prescribe choices of method, resonate with particular academic disciplines, and encourage or discourage the use and/or development of theory. Method is constrained by and makes visible methodological and epistemic choices. If we define good quality qualitative research as research that attends to all three elements and demonstrates internal consistency between them, standardized checklists can be transcended and innovation and diversity in qualitative research practice facilitated.

PubMed Disclaimer

Related information

Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Qualitative Epistemology and Constructive-Interpretative Methodology: Contributions for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

First Online: 15 June 2021

Cite this chapter

epistemological framework qualitative research

Daniel Magalhães Goulart 8 &
José Fernando Patino Torres 9

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research ((PCHR,volume 9))

515 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter aims to discuss the contributions of González Rey’s Qualitative Epistemology and constructive-interpretative methodology for research in social sciences and humanities. Firstly, some of the main epistemological problems that have sustained the history of social sciences and humanities are discussed. Secondly, epistemological principles of González Rey’s proposal and the main definitions, characteristics and configurational logic of knowledge production of constructive-interpretative methodology are discussed as a consistent way to advance in the unity between research and professional action. We claim this approach revitalizes science as a living and creative production by considering the researcher as a subject of knowledge construction. Three epistemological principles sustain this proposal: (1) singularity as a legitimate source for scientific knowledge, (2) research as a dialogical process, and (3) the constructive-interpretative character of scientific knowledge. An important feature of this methodological approach is the rupture with the historical dichotomy between “data collection” and “data analysis”. We argue that González Rey’s epistemological and methodological proposal contributes towards a qualitative approach that considers human creativity and emotionality crucial dimensions of scientific construction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Husserl’s Idea of Rigorous Science and Its Relevance for the Human and Social Sciences

Restoring Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry: The Reach of Qualitative Methods

From Micro-macro Conflict to Methodological Plurality. The Long Way of Qualitative Research

A theoretical model “(…) represents a theoretical construction with capacity for development at the empirical moment and which is expressed in the progressive development of hypotheses and constructions of the researcher” (González Rey, 2009 , p. 220).

The term “Qualitative Epistemology” was coined by González Rey in 1997 in response to the way the majority of psychologists had adhered to qualitative research in the 1980s and 1990s: in an instrumentalist perspective, without epistemological or theoretical consistency (González Rey & Mitjáns Martínez, 2017 ).

Chamberlain, K. (2000). Methodolatry and qualitative health research. Journal of Health Psychology, 5 (3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910530000500306 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject . New York: Cambridge University Press

Google Scholar

Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language? London: Sage Publication.

Gergen, K. (1994). Realities and relationship . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

González Rey, F. (1997). Epistemología cualitativa y subjetividad [Qualitative epistemology and subjectivity]. São Paulo: Educ.

González Rey, F. (2002). Pesquisa qualitativa em psicologia: caminhos e desafios [Qualitative research in psychology: paths and challenges]. São Paulo: Thomson Learning.

González Rey, F. (2005). Pesquisa qualitativa e subjetividade: Os processos de construção da informação [Qualitative research and subjectivity: The processes of information construction]. São Paulo: Thomson.

González Rey, F. (2009). Epistemología y Ontología: un debate necessário para la Psicología hoy [Epistemology and Ontology: a necessary debate for Psychology today]. Diversitas, 5 (2), 205–224.

González Rey, F. (2013). O que oculta o silêncio epistemológico da psicologia? [What hides the epistemological silence of psychology]. Pesquisas e Práticas Psicossociais [Researches and Psychosocial Practices], 8 (1), 20–34.

González Rey, F. (2014). Ideias e modelos teóricos na pesquisa construtivo-interpretativa [Ideas and theoretical models in constructive-interpretive research]. In A. Mitjáns Martínez., M. Neubern, & V. D. Mori (Orgs.), Subjetividade contemporânea: discussões epistemológicas e metodológicas [Contemporary subjectivity: epistemological and methodological discussions] (pp. 13–34). Campinas: Alínea.

González Rey, F. (2017). Advances in Subjectivity from a Cultural-Historical Perspective: Unfoldings and consequences for cultural studies today. In M. Fleer, F. González Rey, & N. Veresov (Eds.), Perezhivanie, emotions and subjectivity. perspectives in cultural-historical research (Vol. 1, pp. 173–193). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4534-9_9 .

González Rey, F. (2017). The topic of subjectivity in psychology: Contradictions, paths and new alternatives. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 47 (4). 502–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12144 .

González Rey. (2018). Subjectivity and discourse: Complementary topics for a critical psychology. Culture & Psychology, 25 (2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X18754338 .

González Rey, F. (2019a). Subjectivity as a new theoretical, epistemological, and methodological pathway within cultural-historical psychology. In F. González Rey, A. Mitjáns Martínez & D. M. Goulart (Eds.), Subjectivity within cultural-historical approach. theory, methodology and research (pp. 21–36). Singapore: Springer.

González Rey, F. (2019b). Methodological and epistemological demands in advancing the study of subjectivity from a cultural-historical standpoint. Culture & Psychology, 0 (0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19888185 .

Article Google Scholar

González Rey, F., & Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2016). Una epistemología para el estudio de la subjetividad: sus implicaciones metodológicas [An epistemology for the study of subjectivity: its methodological implications]. Psicoperspectivas (Online): Individuo y Sociedad [Psicoperspectivas (Online): individual and society] , 15 (1), 5–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol15-Issue1-fulltext-667 .

González Rey, F., & Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2017). Subjetividade: epistemologia, teoria e método [Subjectivity: epistemology, theory and method]. Campinas: Alínea.

González Rey, F., & Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2017b). Epistemological and methodological issues related to the new challenges of a cultural–historical-based psychology (pp. 264–296). In: M. Fleer, F. González Rey, N. Veresov (Orgs.). Perezhivanie, emotions and subjectivity: Advancing Vygotsky’s legacy (pp. 264–296). New York: Springer.

González Rey, F., & Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2019). The constructive-interpretative methodological approach: orienting research and practice on the basis of subjectivity. In F. González Rey, A. Mitjáns Martinez, & D. M. Goulart. Subjectivity within cultural-historical approach: theory, methodology and research (pp. 37–60). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3155-8_3 .

González Rey, F., & Patiño, J. F. (2017). La Epistemología Cualitativa y el estudio de la subjetividad en una perspectiva cultural-histórica. Conversación con Fernando González Rey. Revista Estudios Sociales, 60 , 120–127. https://doi.org/10.7440/res60.2017.10 .

Goulart, D. M. (2017). Educacão, saúde mental e desenvolvimento subjetivo: da patologização da vida à ética do sujeito [Education, mental health and subjective development: from the pathologization of life to the ethics of the subject]. Ph.D. thesis, University of Brasília.

Goulart, D. M. (2018). A pesquisa qualitativa em psicologia: contradições, alternativas e desafios [Qualitative research in psychology: contradictions, alternatives and challenges]. Revista Psicologia, Diversidade e Saúde [Psychology, Diversity and Health Journal], 7 (1), 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.17267/2317-3394rpds.v7i1.1825 .

Goulart, D. M. (2019). Subjectivity and critical mental health: Lessons from Brazil . London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351251907 .

Book Google Scholar

Harré, H. R., & Stearns, P. (Eds.). (1995). Discursive psychology . London, UK & Los Angeles. USA: Sage.

Koch, S. (1999). Psychology in human context: Essays in dissidence and reconstruction . In D. Finkelman & F. Kessel, (Eds.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2014). Um dos desafios da Epistemologia Qualitativa: a criatividade do pesquisador [One of the challenges of qualitative epistemology: the researcher’s creativity]. In: A. Mitjáns Martínez, M. Neubern, V. D. Mori, (Orgs.). Subjetividade contemporânea: discussões epistemológicas e metodológicas (pp. 61–86) [Contemporary subjectivity: epistemological and methodological discussions]. Campinas: Alínea.

Patiño, J. F. (2016). A formação investigativa de doutorandos em educação e psicologia: um estudo da relação orientador-orientando a partir da Teoria da subjetividade [The investigative training of doctoral students in education and psychology: a study of the supervisor-student relationship based on the Theory of Subjectivity]. Ph.D. thesis, University of Brasilia.

Parker, I. (2015). Critical discursive psychology . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Patiño, J. F., & Goulart, D. M. (2016). Qualitative epistemology: A scientific platform for the study of subjectivity from a cultural-historical approach. The Journal of International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7 (1), 161–180.

Patiño, J. F., & Goulart, D. M. (2020). Qualitative epistemology and constructive-interpretative methodology: a proposal for the study of subjectivity. Studies in Psychology, 41 (1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2019.1710809 .

Rose, N. (1996). Power and subjectivity: Critical history and psychology. In Carl F. Graumann & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Historical dimensions of psychological discourse (pp. 103–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571329.006

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil

Daniel Magalhães Goulart

Faculty of Psychology, Federal University of Tocantins, Miracema, Brazil

José Fernando Patino Torres

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Magalhães Goulart .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Albertina Mitjáns Martínez

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Megan Adams

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Goulart, D.M., Torres, J.F.P. (2021). Qualitative Epistemology and Constructive-Interpretative Methodology: Contributions for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. In: Goulart, D.M., Martínez, A.M., Adams, M. (eds) Theory of Subjectivity from a Cultural-Historical Standpoint. Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research, vol 9. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1417-0_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1417-0_5

Published : 15 June 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-1416-3

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-1417-0

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Integration and Implementation Insights

A community blog and repository of resources for improving research impact on complex real-world problems

A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers

By Katie Moon and Deborah Blackman

How can understanding philosophy improve our research? How can an understanding of what frames our research influence our choices? Do researchers’ personal thoughts and beliefs shape research design, outcomes and interpretation?

These questions are all important for social science research. Here we present a philosophical guide for scientists to assist in the production of effective social science (adapted from Moon and Blackman, 2014).

Understanding philosophy is important because social science research can only be meaningfully interpreted when there is clarity about the decisions that were taken that affect the research outcomes. Some of these decisions are based, not always knowingly, on some key philosophical principles, as outlined in the figure below.

Philosophy provides the general principles of theoretical thinking, a method of cognition, perspective and self-awareness, all of which are used to obtain knowledge of reality and to design, conduct, analyse and interpret research and its outcomes. The figure below shows three main branches of philosophy that are important in the sciences and serves to illustrate the differences between them.

(Source: Moon and Blackman 2014)

The first branch is ontology, or the ‘study of being’, which is concerned with what actually exists in the world about which humans can acquire knowledge. Ontology helps researchers recognize how certain they can be about the nature and existence of objects they are researching. For instance, what ‘truth claims’ can a researcher make about reality? Who decides the legitimacy of what is ‘real’? How do researchers deal with different and conflicting ideas of reality?

To illustrate, realist ontology relates to the existence of one single reality which can be studied, understood and experienced as a ‘truth’; a real world exists independent of human experience. Meanwhile, relativist ontology is based on the philosophy that reality is constructed within the human mind, such that no one ‘true’ reality exists. Instead, reality is ‘relative’ according to how individuals experience it at any given time and place.

Epistemology

The second branch is epistemology, the ‘study of knowledge’. Epistemology is concerned with all aspects of the validity, scope and methods of acquiring knowledge, such as a) what constitutes a knowledge claim; b) how can knowledge be acquired or produced; and c) how the extent of its transferability can be assessed. Epistemology is important because it influences how researchers frame their research in their attempts to discover knowledge.

By looking at the relationship between a subject and an object we can explore the idea of epistemology and how it influences research design. Objectivist epistemology assumes that reality exists outside, or independently, of the individual mind. Objectivist research is useful in providing reliability (consistency of results obtained) and external validity (applicability of the results to other contexts).

Constructionist epistemology rejects the idea that objective ‘truth’ exists and is waiting to be discovered. Instead, ‘truth’, or meaning, arises in and out of our engagement with the realities in our world. That is, a ‘real world’ does not preexist independently of human activity or symbolic language. The value of constructionist research is in generating contextual understandings of a defined topic or problem.

Subjectivist epistemology relates to the idea that reality can be expressed in a range of symbol and language systems, and is stretched and shaped to fit the purposes of individuals such that people impose meaning on the world and interpret it in a way that makes sense to them. For example, a scuba diver might interpret a shadow in the water according to whether they were alerted to a shark in the area (the shark), waiting for a boat (the boat), or expecting a change in the weather (clouds). The value of subjectivist research is in revealing how an individual’s experience shapes their perception of the world.

Philosophical perspectives

Stemming from ontology (what exists for people to know about) and epistemology (how knowledge is created and what is possible to know) are philosophical perspectives, a system of generalized views of the world, which form beliefs that guide action.

Philosophical perspectives are important because, when made explicit, they reveal the assumptions that researchers are making about their research, leading to choices that are applied to the purpose, design, methodology and methods of the research, as well as to data analysis and interpretation. At the most basic level, the mere choice of what to study in the sciences imposes values on one’s subject.

Understanding the philosophical basis of science is critical in ensuring that research outcomes are appropriately and meaningfully interpreted. With an increase in interdisciplinary research, an examination of the points of difference and intersection between the philosophical approaches can generate critical reflection and debate about what we can know, what we can learn and how this knowledge can affect the conduct of science and the consequent decisions and actions.

How does your philosophical standpoint affect your research? What are your experiences of clashing philosophical perspectives in interdisciplinary research? How did you become aware of them and resolve them? Do you think that researchers need to recognize different philosophies in interdisciplinary research teams?

To find out more : Moon, K., and Blackman, D. (2014). A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists. Conservation Biology , 28 : 1167-1177. Online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12326/full

Biography: Katie Moon is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. She is also an adjunct at the Institute for Applied Ecology at the University of Canberra. She has worked in the environmental policy arena for 17 years within Australia and Europe, in government, the private sector and academia. Her research focuses on how the right policy instruments can be paired to the right people; the role of evidence in policy development and implementation; and how to increase policy implementation success .

Biography: Deborah Blackman is a Professor in Public Sector Management Strategy and Deputy Director of the Public Service Research Group at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. She researches knowledge transfer in a range of applied, real world contexts. The common theme of her work is creating new organisational conversations in order to improve organisational effectiveness. This has included strengthening the performance management framework in the Australian Public Service; the role of social capital in long-term disaster recovery; and developing a new diagnostic model to support effective joined-up working in whole of government initiatives .

A guide for interdisciplinary researchers: Adding axiology alongside ontology and epistemology by Peter Deane https://i2insights.org/2018/05/22/axiology-and-interdisciplinarity/

Epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research by Evelyn Brister https://i2insights.org/2017/10/31/epistemology-and-interdisciplinarity/

Transforming transdisciplinarity: Interweaving the philosophical with the pragmatic to move beyond either/or thinking by Katie Ross and Cynthia Mitchell https://i2insights.org/2018/11/13/transdisciplinarity-and-either-or-thinking/

What is the role of theory in transdisciplinary research? by Workshop Group on Theory at 2015 Basel International Transdisciplinary Conference http://i2insights.org/2016/02/17/role-of-theory-in-transdisciplinary-research/

Hi Katie and Deborah, First of all want to thank you for such incredible synthesis! Then I want to ask you, how can we situate a paradigm or an school or though in this map? For example, where do you think we can situate the complex paradigm of Edgar Morin? in between the relativistic ontology? or critical theory? thanks in advance.

Pingback: creative drift: on being natural - bob's thoughts, images, feelings

The table summary is admirable. All your write is very nice

Pingback: A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers | Learning Research Methods
Pingback: Week 2 – Ontology and Epistemology – Research Methods

Great post! I really like the table and find it a very helpful illustration!

Hi Kate, thank you very much for helping out. I understand the subject matter more now than before Olushola

Pingback: RES 701, Week 2, Ontology & Epistemology – RES701 Research Methods

Thanks so much for the debate and discussion around the blog post. Machiel is right in pointing out that the blog post (and the article it is based on) was intended as a conversation piece, and we’re pleased that a useful conversation is taking place. The resources and links are very helpful, philosophy is a fascinating discipline and the opportunity to learn and expand our thinking is endless.

We tried to make it clear in the article the blog post is based on that we wanted to bring attention to philosophy; it was obviously impossible to do the discipline of philosophy any real justice within 6,000 words. We wanted to start a conversation: “The purpose of the guide is to open the door to social science research and thus demonstrate that scientists can bring different and legitimate principles, assumptions, and interpretations to their research.”

As Jessica and Melissa point out, it can be challenging to offer social research to a natural science community that typically adopts a narrow philosophical position (e.g. objectivist). The paper was intended to encourage natural scientists to consider alternative ways of generating knowledge, particularly about the human, as opposed to natural, world.

We accept unequivocally that the framework does not get close to accommodating the depth and diversity of philosophy. Adam, we agree that the approach we have taken may not resonate with some philosophers, but we wanted to communicate with a particular audience (conservation scientists) and so we defined ontologies and epistemologies (and posited them relative to one another) that are most commonly observed within this discipline and that might be best understood by the audience. We tried to identify points of difference between ontologies, epistemologies and philosophical perspectives in an attempt to explain how they can influence research design. In the article, we use a case of deforestation in rainforests to demonstrate how different positions can influence the nature of the research questions and outcomes, including the assumptions that will be made.

We did explain in the introduction to our paper the limitations of our approach: “The multifaceted nature and interpretation of each of the concepts we present in our guide means they can be combined in a diversity of ways (see also Lincoln & Guba 2000; Schwandt 2000; Evely et al. 2008; H¨oijer 2008; Cunliffe 2011; Tang 2011). Therefore, our guide represents just one example of how the elements (i.e., different positions within the main branches of philosophy) of social research can apply specifically to conservation science. We recognize that by distilling and defining the elements in a simplified way we have necessarily constrained argument and debate surrounding each element. Furthermore, the guide had to have some structure. In forming this structure, we do not suggest that researchers must consider first their ontological and then their epistemological position and so on; they may well begin by exploring their philosophical perspective.”

This point comes back to Bruce’s comment, about pragmatic approaches to research. Often researchers pick and choose between a range of options that will allow them to define and answer their research questions in a way that makes most sense to them. We make this point in the paper: “Each perspective is characterized by an often wide ranging pluralism, which reflects the complex evolution of philosophy and the varied contributions of philosophers through time (Crotty 1998). All ontologies, epistemologies, and philosophical perspectives are characterized by this pluralism, including the prevailing (post) positivist approach of the natural sciences. It is common for more than one philosophical perspective to resonate with researchers and for researchers to change their perspective (and thus epistemological and ontological positions) toward their research over time (Moses & Knutsen 2012). Thus, scientists do not necessarily commit to one philosophical perspective and all associated characteristics (Bietsa 2010).”

We tried to anticipate concerns that scholars of philosophy might have with our rather reductionist approach, but felt that the more important contribution to make was to bring attention to alternative worldviews, and highlight the importance of philosophy in generating any type of knowledge.

With respect to the characterization of epistemologies, we adopted a continuum provided by Crotty (1998) that focuses on the relationship between the subject and the object. Again, this choice was made on the basis of our audience, to demonstrate that different types of relationship can exist between subject and object

This blog post has generated an interesting discussion on the Association for Interdisciplinary Studies listserv ([email protected]). Selected excerpts below.

Adam Potthast: I hate to make one of my first posts to this list critical without the time to correct some of the errors, but I don’t think you’d see many philosophers agreeing with the characterizations of philosophical views in this post. The infographic strongly mischaracterizes a lot of these positions, and the section on epistemology doesn’t map on to any of the standard understandings of epistemology in the discipline of philosophy. I’d caution against thinking of it as a reliable source to the philosophy behind science.

Gabriele Bammer: Thanks Adam for raising the alarm. It would be great if you and/or others who have problems with this post would spell out your criticisms – not only via this listserv, but (more importantly from my perspective) in a comment on the blog itself. Non-philosophers are hungry for a version of epistemology, ontology etc that they can understand and use and this blog post (and the paper it is based on) address this need. If it is seriously misleading though, that’s obviously a problem. It’s important that this is pointed out and that better alternatives are offered. I appreciate that time is an issue for everyone – anything you can do will be appreciated.

Stuart Henry: Well a good start, so we don’t reinvent the wheel again is James Welch’s article: https://oakland.edu/Assets/upload/docs/AIS/Issues-in-Interdisciplinary-Studies/2009-Volume-27/05_Vol_27_pp_35_69_Interdisciplinarity_and_the_History_of_Western_Epistemology_(James_Welch_IV) .pdf

Gabriele Bammer: Thanks Stuart, I may be missing something, but it seems to me that Welch’s article covers different terrain, being more about the philosophy underpinning interdisciplinarity. What Moon and Blackman provide is a quick guide to understanding people’s different philosophical positions, so that if you are working in a team, for example, you can better understand why someone sees the world differently. The Toolbox developed by Eigenbrode, O’Rourke and others provides a practical way of uncovering these differences.

Julie Thompson Klein: Good point Gabriele about the value of the Toolbox, though people still need the kind of background you’re aiming to provide.

Machiel Keestra: Although I agree that the blog post should perhaps not so much be taken to offer a current representation of the main positions in philosophy of science or about the interconnections between epistemological and ontological positions, I think it does a nice job in offering a conversation piece: what are relevant positions and options that people might -implicitly– take and how are they different from other positions. Given the modest ambitions of the authors, I think that is a fair result.

In addition to the interesting approach offered by the Toolbox Project, an alternative is presented in Jan Schmidt’s Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10202-007-0037-8 In our Introduction to interdisciplinary research, I’ve inserted an all-too brief philosophy of science which should help to raise some understanding of this difficult issue as well: https://www.academia.edu/22420234/An_Introduction_to_Interdisciplinary_Research._Theory_and_Practice

Lovely work! Thank you. I am also initially trained as a natural scientist, and now consider myself a ‘social-ecological researcher’ and have had to do a lot of learning about ontologies, epistemologies etc. I think I might use this paper as a discussion paper in our department as I think it is crucial for interdisciplinarians to understand these issues.

Kia ora Katie and Debbie, great post! I am a biophysical scientist who has come to social science and one of the struggles is being able to place the new and relevant concepts about questions that we don’t necessarily ask as biophysical scientists. Your table is a really useful aid to this – I immediately sent it to all my colleagues! It also makes it clearer to me how I can use the concept of triangulation that Bruce alluded to in his reply. So thank you for explaining so concisely. Thanks, Melissa

Hi Katie and Deborah,

Thank you for that discussion. I think that you have created a really useful table showing the philosophical continuums/polarities, how the various ontological and epistemological positions relate to each other, and the importance for researchers to be aware of them. In my own research practice, I am not committed to any one particular philosophical theory or perspective. They all appear to be true to some degree, that is, in some conceivable context – even though some of the concepts and philosophical positions appear, in the extreme form of their statement, to be contradictory, that is, if one end of a continuum/polarity is true then by implication it seems the other must be false – thus creating a quandary of research perspective. Hence the attraction, for me, of the application of a multiplicity of methods, approaches and philosophical perspectives – as and when they seem able to give ontological or epistemological insight – with triangulation between the results of the disparate approaches as the temporary arbiter of an evolving meaning and truth. This might be considered a pragmatic, perhaps even an opportunistic, approach to conducting science. However, as the old adage goes “the proof is in the pudding” – how useful is the knowledge obtained?

cheers Bruce

Discover more from Integration and Implementation Insights

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

IMAGES

Qualitative research types and their methodological and epistemological
The research paradigm
Relationship between epistemology, theoretical perspectives
Epistemological Assumptions for Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Epistemology and Research
Qualitative research types and their methodological and epistemological

COMMENTS

PDF Epistemologies and Methodologies in Qualitative Research
Outline. This presentation aims to outline in a simple manner the relationship between epistemology and methodology. The importance of axiology as part of the epistemology is introduced. Understanding is provided on how epistemology and methodology combine as a framework. The Simple Relationship between Epistemology, Methodology and Method.
Epistemological Perspectives In Qualitative Research
An epistemological perspective provides a framework for predicting, describing, empowering, and deconstructing population-specific worldviews, increasing the base of knowledge that leads to enhanced understanding of the purpose behind qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). Greater understanding and insight can be developed using this emic ...
Planning Qualitative Research: Design and Decision Making for New
Qualitative research, conducted thoughtfully, is internally consistent, rigorous, and helps us answer important questions about people and their lives (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These fundamental epistemological foundations are key for developing the right research mindset before designing and conducting qualitative research.
PDF Epistemological Dimensions in Qualitative Research: the Construction of
Epistemological Dimensions in Qualitative Research: the Construction of Knowledge Online. Overview: this chapter introduces the aims of the book. In doing so, it explores how the advent of the Internet has inspired new ways of thinking about the nature of qualitative inquiry and how research is conducted using different methods of data collection.
The Central Role of Theory in Qualitative Research
The use of theory in science is an ongoing debate in the production of knowledge. Related to qualitative research methods, a variety of approaches have been set forth in the literature using the terms conceptual framework, theoretical framework, paradigm, and epistemology.
Perspectives on the epistemological bases for qualitative research
This chapter reviews and clarifies the various ways in which qualitative researchers approach the creation of knowledge. Qualitative research can take many forms. Within the general rubric of qualitative research, we can find a wide range of activities that are driven by different goals, deploy different research strategies, and generate different kinds of insights. This means that although ...
Full article: Philosophical Paradigms in Qualitative Research Methods
Similar recommendations are found in Wagner et al.'s systematic review, which identified several studies that recommended that "students should be exposed to philosophy of science and epistemological debates related to qualitative research" (Citation 2019, p. 12), and that "paradigms linked to qualitative research be introduced in the first year and sustained throughout a curriculum ...
The Epistemological and Methodological Foundations of Qualitative Research
Abstract. Qualitative research provides a unique and powerful lens on the details, processes, and idiosyncrasies of social life, but the scholars who choose this path face complex challenges and ...
Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies
In this article, the authors clarify a framework for qualitative research, in particular for evaluating its quality, founded on epistemology, methodology, and method. They define these elements and discuss their respective contributions and interrelationships.
PDF Qualitative Research
The epistemological landscape in qualitative research is as diverse and complex as the various disciplines that employ qualitative methods. We don't attempt to recreate ... may provide a useful philosophical framework for qualitative research and the social and behavioral sciences in general. Interpretivism Though there are various ...
PDF Qualitative Epistemology: A scientific platform for the study of
Qualitative Epistemology. In this theoretical-empirical type of production, we show the heuristic value of this theoretical-epistemological framework to study phenomena that can only be understood and intervened using an approach that is equal as complex. This epistemological
Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review
This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then ...
Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies
In this article, the authors clarify a framework for qualitative research, in particular for evaluating its quality, founded on epistemology, methodology, and method. They define these elements and discuss their respective contributions and interrelationships. Epistemology determines and is made vis …
Epistemology and Metaphysics for Qualitative Research
With the aid of helpful examples and case studies, the book challenges the prevailing modes of thinking about qualitative inquiry by showcasing an immense variety of philosophical frameworks. Armed with a strong understanding of this philosophical backbone, students will be able to choose and defend a 'pick and mix' of research methods that ...
Understanding epistemology and its key approaches in research
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the theory of knowledge. ... creates the framework for how we, as individuals, connected in ... Qualitative research from start to ...
Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research
Epistemology presupposes ontology, but many students of qualitative research learn these in reverse order. First, one must conceive of an entity and its indicators in whatever reality one adopts.
PDF 2 Epistemological Foundation and Research Methodology
Lincoln (1994) mention four epistemological approaches especially applicable in a qualitative research context: positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism. Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991), on the other hand, suggest three research epistemology streams: positiv-ist, interpretive and critical.
Qualitative Epistemology and Constructive-Interpretative Methodology
This chapter aims to discuss central aspects of the contribution of González Rey's Qualitative Epistemology and constructive-interpretative methodology (González Rey, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2014, 2019a, 2019b; González Rey & Mitjáns Martínez, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2019) for research in social sciences and humanities.As we have discussed in previous work (González Rey & Patino, 2017; Patiño ...
A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for
Epistemology. The second branch is epistemology, the 'study of knowledge'. Epistemology is concerned with all aspects of the validity, scope and methods of acquiring knowledge, such as a) what constitutes a knowledge claim; b) how can knowledge be acquired or produced; and c) how the extent of its transferability can be assessed.
PDF Qualitative Research: A Decisive Element to Epistemological
itative research in social science is an invaluable way to understand social world. Core objective(s) of qualitative resear. hers are concerned with how to study or learn about the nature of the social world. The process of st. dying, knowing or learning about social world generates some philosophical debates. Before discussing about the issues ...
View of Ontological and Epistemological Foundations of Qualitative
Return to Article Details Ontological and Epistemological Foundations of Qualitative Research ...
(PDF) The Epistemological Framework of Qualitative Research: Is It
In book: Qualitative Research: Differing Perspectives, Emerging Trends (pp.35-48) Chapter: The Epistemological Framework of Qualitative Research: Is It Still a Cinderella to Quantitative Research?
Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing
The expanding popularity of qualitative research, and more particularly case study research, in the field of Information Systems, Organization and Management research, seems to have ... and adapted to the research's epistemological framework, the research results will be limited and superficial (Gephart, 2004), if valid at all. ...
Translating Open-Ended Questions in Cross-Cultural Qualitative Research
This article discusses the Network's approach to overcoming barriers in multicultural and multinational research in a qualitative context. Methods: The network created a protocol to guide decision-making throughout the translation process of qualitative data collected from participants in their native languages.