Ontology and epistemology explained for social science postgrads

Ontology and epistemology are two words that can evoke a real sense of dread in postgraduate students.

There’s often an assumption that postgrads should just know what they mean. Professors and lecturers often take these words for granted, peppering their lectures and emails with them. They say things like, “You should write more about ontology in your dissertation methodology chapter”, or “That all depends on your epistemology”. And you’re like WTF?!

So, what do these words actually mean?

Briefly, ontology is about the question, “WHAT am I looking at?” and epistemology is about the question, “HOW do I go about studying it?”.

Ontology – the what question, epistemology – the how question.

In this blogpost, I’ll get into more detail and explain them in relatable, everyday terms and by the end of this blogpost, you’ll feel more confident in understanding them and writing about them in your academic work. We’re going to tackle ontology first and then move onto epistemology.

Ontology

You should think of ontology as the “What?” question. What am I looking at? What do I think the social world looks like?

How we see the social world will have an impact on the kind of research we do within it, so understanding the range of different ways of looking at the world is an important thing to know because it’s where we begin from.

We can think of ontology as seeing the social world like a hotel or a home.

Is the social world like a hotel that we stay in for a while? We just spend some time there, we don’t change anything about the hotel, we’re guests. The hotel exists independently of us, it just is. It was there before we arrived, it will be there after we leave. We have no influence or impact upon it. It is unaffected by us. It is a concrete reality in and of itself.

This is a realist position. Realists believe that there is a tangible social world, an objective reality. It exists 'out there'. It is external to us. It is relatively stable and fixed. Regardless of what we do, or how we choose to understand it, it exists nonetheless. It is simply there, and has a reality all of its own, independently of the things that individuals do within it. We don't create it, we don't control or influence it. It simply just 'is'. It is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. It appears the same to everyone who looks at it. It is concrete. It is unbiased. It is real.

The other way of seeing the social world is viewing it more like a home that we live in. We make changes to our home, we style it, decorate it, put our own stuff in it. We have an impact upon it. We create is as our home, its not simply an objective, concrete house or apartment, it is a home and our impact upon it is immense. We create our home. We influence it. It is uniquely us. It is personal, emotional, saturated with feeling.

This is an idealist position. Idealists do not see the social world as fixed or stable, but as permanently under construction. It is not concrete, it’s blobby and jelly like, it is always in the process of being created and moulded. It is fluid. It changes shape. It looks and feels different to different people. We use names, concepts, ideas and labels as tools to make sense of what we experience, to describe, categorize and make meaning. There is not one objective reality, but multiple realities. Our understanding of the social world will always be subjective, meaning that it will be shaped by our own feelings, interpretations and prejudices. It does not appear the same to everyone who looks at it.

That’s ontology, lets briefly recap. Ontology is the what question. What am I looking at? What do I think the social world looks like? Do we see it as something that’s relatively fixed, rigid and unchangeable, that we don’t have much influence over? This is a realist stance. Or do we see it as something that’s flexible, something that changes as it responds to what people do within it? This is an idealist stance.

Epistemology

Now lets move onto epistemology. Epistemology is the “How?” question. How do I study this social world? How do I approach this social world that I want to make sense of, what’s my strategy? How should I go about generating knowledge about the social world?

Again we have two positions. There are those who seek to explain and identify the causes. Then there are those who seek to understand and identify the meanings.

Those who seek to explain and identify the causes are positivists. They believe that we should try to understand the social world in the same way we try to understand the natural world. The kind of questions they ask have a lot in common with the questions of natural sciences - like biology, chemistry, physics. We should stay true to the principles and processes of the natural sciences. We should record, test and experiment. We should be objective and value free in our research. We should focus on explaining human behavior and ask, "What causes people to act in the way they do?", "What factors impact upon this?". Research is often deductive, which means positivists test out existing theories that have been developed by other people who came before them.

On the other hand, those who seek to understand things and identify the meanings are interpretivists. They believe that what we study in social sciences is wholly different from what we study in the natural sciences. Humans are distinctive, unique and individual. People are not like rocks or substances or solids, liquids or gases. Their behavior has meaning. The social world is meaningful. People's actions are based upon how they interpret the social world and this varies from one person to the next. We should focus upon understanding human behaviour. How can we make sense of people's behavior? What does it mean for them and others? We should seek to empathize: see things from other people's point of view and perspective. Interpretivist research is often inductive, focusing upon the generation of new theory from what we observe, rather than testing out theories from people who came before us. We start over, we generate our own understandings.

So that is epistemology. Let’s recap those two positions. Are we seeking to explain things and identify the causes, observing the social world from a distance as detached, objective observers who are seeking to explain what’s going on? This is a positivist stance. Or are we seeking to understand things and identify the meanings, immersing ourselves within the social world, recognising that we’re part of it? This is an interpretivist stance.

Essentially, ontology and epistemology really are as simple as “What?” and “How?”.

Ontology is the what question. When you look at the social world, what are you seeing?

Epistemology is the how question. How do you then go about researching that social world. Ontology – what am I looking at? Epistemology – how do I study it?

Your answers to these questions will reveal what your own positioning is, and they will influence the type of method you choose for any of your research methods modules or your dissertation.

Students who don’t think about ontology and epistemology and take the time to understand it often end up choosing a method that they’re not comfortable with, because it’s not a good fit with their own worldview. So take the time to have a good think about them.

Students who don’t think about ontology and epistemology and take the time to understand it often end up choosing a method that they’re not comfortable with, because it’s not a good fit with their own worldview.

Ready to get clued up about paradigms?

Struggling to wrap your head around paradigms?

My Paradigms Starter Kit is here to help! This free, easy-to-follow resource breaks down ontology, epistemology, and five key paradigms into simple terms.

Perfect for PhD students and researchers looking to clarify their research philosophy and boost their confidence. Sign up and grab your kit today!

Paradigms Starter Kit