This is an ontological assertion - it challenges the nature of the world (what it is) - then it leads us to an epistemological consideration - to reconsider how we. comments on the relationship between skep? ticism and anti-realism. I. Two Problems of Epistemology. Some philosophers have blamed the mod? ern ontology. Amongst these concepts and issues are ontology and epistemology. defines ontology as “a concept concerned with the existence of, and relationship between.
The figure below shows three main branches of philosophy that are important in the sciences and serves to illustrate the differences between them. Social science research guide consisting of ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives. When read from left to right, elements take on a more multidimensional nature eg. The elements within each branch are positioned according to their congruence with elements from other branches so when read from top to bottom or bottom to topelements from one branch align with elements from another eg.
Subcategories of elements ie. Ontology helps researchers recognize how certain they can be about the nature and existence of objects they are researching. How do researchers deal with different and conflicting ideas of reality? 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. Truth only happens in the moment. He goes on to give the example that human beings construct the organisation and the culture instead of the organisation and culture being pre-given categories which affect behaviours.
This will often happen with start up companies where the culture evolves as the organisation grows and the product or service develops. Often this development is aligned to the intellectual and experiential growth of the founding team.
Microsoft and Apple where the leaders have empowered their teams and the organic internal growth evolves the brand and therefore could cause it to be more enduring and of course this is my experience and may not be true! The Epistemology is about the information that counts as acceptable knowledge in NLP and how it should be acquired and interpreted.
The two Ontological positions point to two of the main distinctions in the Epistemology of research in NLP; Positivism and Interpretivism Positivism does not allow for the subjective opinions of the researcher as the approach deals with verifiable observations and measurable relations between those observations, not with speculation and conjecture. It is therefore the more scientific perspective with no room here for the subjective opinions of the researcher as the approach deals with verifiable observations and measurable relations between them, not with speculation and conjecture.
Interpretivism The Interpretivist approach however, rejects absolute facts and suggests that facts are based on perception rather than objective truth. There will be specific, technical, particular knowledge some may be lacking in, but there is, besides, knowledge shared by everyone alike. For example, that which enables people to know they are equal in essential identity to other people and, therefore, in dignity, or that constitutes grounds for people's reluctance to let their identity be distorted.
Were this not so, the unfairness deriving from disregarding that equality could hardly be recognized. But especially, what changes them is attentive listening in the certainty that what is conveyed to us as their truths are no less important than ours. Only the mark of humility in dialogue that heeds "affinities or similarities, as well as alterity or differences" SAUKKO,p. If the researcher considers them different, belittled in their capacity and ways of knowing, he will not be able to find that he is identical to each one and in that identity, in that sameness, find himself.
On that account, ontological considerations come before epistemological and methodological ones. That is why we must deal with the question about who is known before the one about how it is known. That is why it is necessary to ask ourselves what identity of the known subjects is being assumed, what concepts they are being approached through and to what theories, set in which paradigms, those concepts belong. It is not about simply establishing theory limits, what is to be considered is the being's unlimited nature shown in communication.
Hence the openness of the listeners, of the receivers. Hence the need for acknowledgment of their own biases, their own deficiencies, but, at the same time, of that shared element which enables both to "understand each other.
Knowing through theories may, therefore, jeopardize communication and the egalitarian relationship, because no hierarchy, rank, order, privilege, or subordination taken as true in these theories or outside their scope should mediate the link between the knower and the known. Notions, concepts, and explanations provided by theories prove, many times, to be vacuous, hollow, inert, or dumb faced in respect of the utterances with which women and men narrate their existential vicissitudes and causally link different events, in turn creating theory themselves.
Cooperative Knowledge Construction Qualitative research is nourished, mostly, by the different nature of the information provided by the people participating in the inquiry. Resorting to the knowledge of "others" and the validity of the collected data is usual practice in social sciences, whether taken, for example, from surveys or interviews.
A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers
This situation talks about a feature of the knowledge process which the Epistemology of the Known Subjects highlights: Knowledge that subjects know with and know "themselves" as equals in cognitive interaction with is not limited to the existential aspect of identity, nor to the human beings' work, relationships, expressions, or productions. Based on what people have in common, that is, on essential identity, this kind of knowledge empowers, makes human communication possible and this is the case because it expresses and interprets the two identity components at a time.
However, what would be the sense of coming up to people with questions inquiring about what can be apprehended by simply resorting to observation? What the Epistemology of the Known Subject is about, then, is recognizing the limitations of those traditional ways of knowing and showing the need for the open-mindedness of the researcher to the plenitude of what can be perceived in a different way.
Communication between subjects of cognitive interaction is, thus, a suitable means to express the essential and existential components of identity, or what amounts to the same, to show, at the same time, what a person is equal to all the others in, that is, his "shared humanity" ANGEN,p.
He is one and the same with him or with her, and in that being the same, all distance, hiatus, and separation, which, in a moment, were the conditions for the objectivity of knowledge are surmounted.
What on earth are Ontology and Epistemology?
Simply because, as is usual, their actions are not liable to interpretation through the common dignity bringing both subjects of cognitive interaction together, but through the alleged difference separating them. An example of this is when poverty is associated with crime, or unemployment to a lack of suitable capacity to meet market requirements, reproducing, in this way, the deterministic model of natural sciences and, consequently, taking for granted causal relationships prescribed by general laws that are supposed to enable prediction and phenomena control.
In such interaction, as stated, two subjects, essentially equal, make different contributions derived from their same capacity of knowing and their own biography, circumstances, struggles and achievements of their own existence.
The attained knowledge, being of a different nature, lies in a different legitimacy, a legitimacy conferring a scope, depth, development, magnitude of its own. That kind of knowledge, to be valid, must account for the two components of identity at the same time, that is, focusing on what is common to all, it must be able to display the differences without essentializing them and without turning them into the axis of cognitive interaction.
Such differences constitute nonessential features that do not represent people's integrity nor do they have any bearing on their dignity. Likewise, does acknowledging the equal knowing capacity, common to all human beings, not jeopardize the foundation of the pedestal that so called "science" stands on?
Why should we collect their stories? Why should we ask them about the meaning they assign to their actions? Why should we appeal to them to understand the situations they live in, the processes they go through? This appeal to theories constitutes a threat for both cognitive interaction, as already stated, and for cooperative knowledge construction.
So much so that, for example, if researchers assume social reality is subjected to some sort of normativity, of law and that, in consequence, the autonomous capacity of the person's will is constrained, determined, or conditioned, what value will they ascribe to the subjective meaning actors assign to their actions? Will they consider that the actors' words will provide them with some knowledge they lack?
This cannot be attained while they believe that only some, and in particular theory creators, scientists, and philosophers, may understand the sense, the destiny of mankind in the world, and of the person in society. Those theories have their own ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions and, if we incorporate the concepts of these theories cognitively, the subjects who are to be known will be observed, and their actions interpreted, along the line of those assumptions.
Relationship between epistemology and ontology - Philosophy Stack Exchange
The weight of notions and categories with which the knowledge of the "other" is attained is, in general, so strong that it does not just hinder access and recognition of the common aspect of identity, but it also overshadows it, darkening the differences between individuals and groups, as well. This violence of the interpretation code imposes a "view" of the "others" on them and with it, an image of their identity, of what they are, can and, more often than not, must be and do.
It predicts a destiny for them, it shows them their possible and impossible goals and the various possibility conditions. Very little is finally known, on that account, about the destiny they aspire to and about what women and men look for and dream on a daily basis, although much is said about those other destinies, the so called "historical" ones, that are so often none other than the expression of certain individuals' desire to condition the future action and decision of others.
Concepts used to know, although critical at first, once established as universal cease to be analytical, and the religion of sense begins. They become canonical and enter the general system in theoretical reproduction mode. Scientific, universalizing discourse, code, therefore turns imperialistic: The interesting feature of this perspective lies in it examining the resources and strategies used in oral or written texts to impose, uphold, account for, and propose a certain interpretive model of social reality.
Those interpretive models are cognitively grounded, mostly, in the various epistemological paradigms I defined earlier Section 2. The first stage generated a corpus of data Corpus 1 that consisted of 84 items of news that were published between 27th December and 17th Februaryall dealing with the topic of violence in general, and with young people associated with criminal acts in particular.
The news articles were published between 7th May and 17th February The prevailing news items related to: The texts of those laws were also part of the corpus. Among them are the categorization processes, characterization, different ways of representing social action, and metaphors. The acts of killing, crime, murder, and criminal activities are circumscribed to those categories SACKS,pp. The word mara was used in El Salvador to mean a group of friends, but it then acquired a deprecatory meaning and is today used to refer to a group of organized youngsters who are linked to crime.
What on earth are Ontology and Epistemology? - The Performance Solution
In the alternative interpretive models one group of young people is not different from the other and "youth," "adolescence," "childhood" are the terms used. Young people are not categorized by their inclusion in certain groups, nor by the activities they have or may have engaged in, nor is youth associated with violence.
Characterization refers to both actions predicated on young people being associated with criminal activities and actions attributed to them using certain terms, "criminality" and "violence" in particular LPG, January 15, 20 and 27, In the alternative interpretive models no differences between groups of young people are pointed out, rather, they are all equally regarded as respectful of current and common societal values.
Those characteristics are presented as essentialized and, therefore, irreversible and unmodifiable LPG, February 10, For the alternative interpretive models the causes of violence are not subjective nor individual, but social and structural like, among others, the lack of educational options, in particular, LPG, January 29, and of opportunities, in general, LPG, February 10, together with poverty LPG, February 15, and discrimination EM, February 15, For the alternative interpretive models it is dignity which has to be privileged.
From this perspective, on 2nd April the Supreme Court of Justice, choosing dignity over security, declared as unconstitutional the "antimaras law," which saw the very fact of belonging to a "gang" pandilla Art. The day before, the Legislative Assembly had supported a new version of that law for a period of three months.
In this way, they are left symbolically out of participating, as free and equal, in the processes that construct society.David James: How to get clear about method, methodology, epistemology and ontology, once and for all
The fact that such an act of identity deprivation is not seen as violent prevents their doers from recognizing it and, hence, from avoiding its practice. And on the other hand, this kind of violence prevents those enduring it from having the possibility, much as they may claim their right to be protected or defended from it, of incorporating their resistance practices into their life-world as part of a new and renewed alternative interpretive model.
Final Considerations This paper might, then, conclude with one question among the very many posed throughout the text: That is, to have access, on the one hand, to what is common, identical, thus enabling communication between the knowing and the known subjects and making cognitive interaction and cooperative knowledge construction possible, and, on the other hand, to grasp what is different, what makes for every person's uniqueness.
This ontological rupture enables the avoidance of the remnants of realistic ontology, so frequent in the Epistemology of the Knowing Subject, even if the interpretive paradigm is assumed and qualitative research carried out. It is, then, about knowing "with" the "other" and not "about" the "other," about being one and the same with him or her, based on the shared component of identity; about leaving out separation, the otherness that separates the knower and the known and that turns them into "objects," much as their "subjectivity" as a knower may have been appealed to.
It is about making the total manifestation of those "others" possible, about not exercising first, cognitive and then ontological violence against them, imposing an interpretation code they would have never resorted to, to account for the meaning of their actions.
It is about those researchers not giving up the principle of equality to lay stress on the differences. It is about their overcoming any distance and avoiding being trapped in the epistemological dualism with which "objectivity" is associated. It is about preventing the knowledge producers from denying not only the essential identity of the participant actors but also their own, by disregarding the shared feature of their humanity, which makes them one and the same, which identifies them and which is the reason for every person's dignity and, on that account, of that of both subjects of cognitive interaction.
Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10 3 Some perils of paradigms.