A topic in research methodology
"The neglect of ontology protects half-based metaphysics: we have not the choice of making metaphysical commitments or avoiding them, but of adopting a good or bad metaphysics."
Mario Bunge
What is ontology?
Ontology may be considered as part of philosophy, but ontological questions are important in research.
"The two aspects of 'philosophy' considered to underpin research paradigms are beliefs (or 'commitments') about the nature of the world (what kind of things exist in the world, and what is their nature?), and so the nature of the phenomena studied in research; and beliefs about the nature and status of human knowledge, and so how we might come to hold knowledge. These concerns are known technically as 'ontology' and 'epistemology' respectively.
…Although it may be possible to do effective research that avoids using the terminology, it is certainly not possible to plan coherent research without taking these issues seriously."
(Taber, 2013: 47-8)
One key issue of ontology is the extent to which there is an external world which exists regardless of us, rather than depending upon us. Common sense might suggest that obviously the external world is out there, and will carry on existing if we close our eyes, go to sleep, or when we die.
An extreme solipistic position, that the only thing that really exists is oneself (reflecting a position made famous by Descartes when he suggested that the only thing he could be absolutely sure of was his own existence as a being able to have the thought – although he then went to argue he could reasonably believe in more than that!) may be a logically consistent position – but is not a position which seems to be a good basis for setting out onto research into teacher beliefs or classroom dialogue or any of the other myriad things which according to the solipsist may well not exist!
However, even if undertaking educational or other social research would seem to reflect a commitment to things really existing and so being suitable foci for research, there is a still an important question about the kind of things they are, the kind of existence they have.
We might ask what kind of entitles are:
- the moon
- black holes
- unicorns
- ideal gases
- phlogiston
- angels
- thoughts
- teaching styles
- …
A simple comparison to explain why we need to think about ontology
Consider for example research to explore teacher attitudes to giving students more control over the curriculum, and research to investigate the level of school laboratory equipment. We might think that school lab equipment and teacher attitudes are both real things. But they are not the same kind of things.
Because of the kind of things we think Bunsen burners are we expect to be able to count them, and for two different observers to come up with the same count.1 But teacher attitudes are not the kind of thing we can count (which needs to be taken into account if research presents numerical results comparing the frequency of different attitudes, as clearly this reflects an analytical process which has sought to classify attitudes in some way that requires interpretation). Eliciting an attitude requires interpersonal communication which is dependent upon developing rapport and on the state of mind of those involved. A different researcher may naturally get on better with an informant and 'open up' (in a way that does not apply with Bunsen burners), and the same researcher may be more successful in eliciting a useful response at one rather than another . Attitudes may not be entirely fixed – and a teacher may present a somewhat different attitude sometime later. A Bunsen burner may be broken and discarded, or moved to a different lab., but at the time of a count is either present in the lab or not.
It is important to understand the nature of what we are researching so we understand the kind of knowledge it makes sense to seek, which also impacts on how we can obtain that information (an issue of epistemology). Ontology impacts on epistemology. (And epistemology then informs our choices of methodology and research design.)
Exploring subjectivities
In the natural sciences we are largely interested in studying phenomena which are to a large extent at least objective and mind-independent. Volcanoes, comets, red giants, minerals, bacteria and so forth make suitable foci for scientific study. Of course, although the thing we call a volcano will continue regardless if there are no human observers to see it, there is a sense in which it is only a volcano because that is how we conceptualise it. (No one has ever seen a volcano which exists as discrete object which is clearly demarcated from its context!)
However, social research may be concerned with attitudes, behaviors, thoughts, traditions, rituals, and so forth – things that only exist when there are people. Moreover, even if there is some scope for disagreeing on where a volcano starts and ends, or what counts as a volcano, social phenomena may be much harder to define (a lesson, classroom misbehaviour, good teaching, cruelty…)
A major area of focus in educational research concerns the mental experience of others – something only directly available to the research participant and not the observer. Even if we are confident we can have objective knowledge of some aspects of the natural world, this seems less feasible when we are interested in people's subjective experiences.
Considering the ontological nature of research foci
When analysing research studies, or when thinking about our own research projects, we can ask about the nature of the research foci (the objects', or perhaps 'subjects' of the enquiry):
What is the nature of…?
Often in studies in areas such as education there are different ways of understanding a research focus and researchers need to ask questions such as: How should we understand the nature of [whatever] before setting out on their research.
Read about determining the nature of a research focus
Beyond existence
Questions of ontology may be considered to go beyond the status something has as objective or subjective, or as real or imaginary.
Typologies
For example, we may consider typologies, that divide objects into classes
As one example, consider the question 'what types of humans are there?'
Or, are all schools the same kind of institution? If now, what classes of schools are there?
When using classes we should consider if they relate to absolute distinctions and whether they might shift over time, or re dependent upon a local culture.
Characteristic properties
Characterising entities may also be seen as a part of ontology
- What are the characteristics of a student? (what makes someone 'count' as a student?)
- What makes a school 'independent'?
- What counts as 'conceptual change'?
- What makes a science course qualify as 'integrated science'?
- When should a students conception be considered an alternative conception?
- What makes a research study 'mixed methods'?
and so forth.
Read about characterising research foci
Sources cited:
- Bunge, M. (2017/1998). Philosophy of Science. Volume 1: From problem to theory. Routledge. (1967)
- Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Notes:
1 Even in this case there might be complications. For example, if a Bunsen burner is so damaged that it is not serviceable, should it be included in the count? (Probably not.) If a Bunsen burner is not currently being used because its rubber hose has perished, should it be counted? (Probably yes, as it can easily be fitted with some new hose.) Without some such criteria different observers may produce different counts.
My introduction to educational research:
Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
