Ontology, Epistemology, Paradigms, Methodology and methods (2022)

Ontology, Epistemology, Paradigms,
Methodology and methods



Introduction


Educational research has been conducted in various forms and
settings throughout the decades, with a constant shift between popular research
designs favouring a positivist, constructionist, transformationist or pragmatic
approach to which paradigm, ontology, epistemology, methodology and method is
the ‘true’ method of educational research. The influence and importance of
gender interactions have been widely discussed and debated within a variety of
disciplines, especially in educational contexts over this time, however little
research has been conducted into investigating the effects
of gender interactions between physical education teachers and their
students (Davis& Nicase, 2011; Nicaise, Bois, Fairclough, Amorose &
Cogérino, 2007)

(Video) Ontology, epistemology and research paradigm

For
the purposes of analysis, two articles addressing the same research area were
chosen; Davis & Nicase (2011): Teacher student interactions : Four case
studies of gender in physical education
, with the aim to better understand
gender interactions between teachers and their students in secondary level
physical education utilising a mix of qualitative and quantitative means; and
Nicaise, Bois, Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino (2007):
Girls'
and boys' perceptions of physical education teachers' feedback: Effects on
performance and psychological responses,
which
analyses the perceptions of physical education teachers’ feedback patterns with
male and female students through quantitative means.


By analysing these articles on gender interactions between
physical education teachers’ and their students I was able to gain insights into
the utilisation of different research methodologies and methods, the importance
of differing ontological and epistemological views regarding teacher practices
and the systemic approach to conducting effective, ethical, valid and creditable
research in educational contexts. This paper begins with the analysis of various
research approaches, ontology, epistemologies and paradigms used in research,
including approaches used in the research samples; discussion surrounding
various methods and methodologies, discussing the ethical considerations and the
influence of power in educational research and concluding with a discussion on
the major outcomes of the sample research processes.

Research
approach



There
is a substantial plethora of differing (however equally important) approaches to
research in social sciences, especially education; however to understand its
development all prospective researchers must consider the overarching concepts
of which ontological, epistemological and paradigm in which they belong to.
Before doing so, understanding of broad approaches needs to be established, with
O’
Toole & Beckett (2010) suggesting 3 approaches to research;


  • Descriptive and interpretative: that being to describe how something works, what makes it
    work and why does it behave in such a way; such as ethnography and case
    studies

  • Intervention: What happens if we change or add aspects to
    the scenario, which can be attributed towards action research and
    experimental research

  • A
    mix of the above, such as viewing a phenomenon and then acting to examine
    the effects of changing (or adding) elements, such as reflective
    practitioner case studies and narrative inquiry.

Ontology
forms the basis of all research inquiry as it forms the basis for the
construction of reality or as “claims and assumptions that are made about the
nature of social reality, claims about what exists, what it looks like, what
units make it up and how these units interact with each other.” (Blaikie, 2000,
p. 8, as cited in
Grix,
2002, p. 177) Epistemology is concerned with the theory of knowledge, how it is
obtained, how is it validated and new ways of knowing which are more effective
than other knowledge gathering models and theories (Grix, 2002). Paradigm then
results from the combination of the researchers’ ontological and
epistemological approach which informs the approach to research methodology and
research methods (Grix, 2002)

A
positivist paradigm can be viewed as a ‘scientific method’ approach to
educational research which prioritises a quantitative research approach.
O’Toole
& Beckett (2010) describes positivism as human understanding of behaviours
and learning should be positive, tangible and demonstrable.
Whereas
Darlaston-Jones
(2007) ascertain that‘positivism views reality as universal, objective, and
quantifiable’,suggesting that reality is measurably equally and remains the same
regardless of the individual experiencing it. A
constructionist paradigm however surrounds the idea that humans create their own
realities, scaffolding their learning in the process (O’Toole & Beckett,
2010) Progressing this, Darlaston-Jones (2007, pp.19) suggests that “reality is
shaped by the cultural, historical, political, and social norms”, that being the
accumulation of experiences and their interpretation of experiences into a world
view (which O’Toole & Beckett, 2010 regard as a philosophical
paradigm)


Transformative paradigm was developed the growing
dissatisfaction with the positivist and constructionist/interpretative with
Mertens (2007) suggesting that a transformative paradigm includes a cyclical
model of research which involves participants and researchers in the process
through the establishment of partnerships with power relations and ‘culturally
competent practices’ highlighting the key differences from previously mentioned
paradigms

(Video) Ontology epistemology methodology and methods I ontology and epistemology in research examples



Finally a pragmatic paradigm introduces the idea that there is
no single system of philosophy or reality (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). That
being said, the pragmatic paradigm allows the researcher to utilise data
collection strategies and data collection methods which are more likely to
provide insights into their central body of research questions without
“philosophical loyalty to any alternative paradigms” (Mackenzie & Knipe,
2006, pp. 197)


Progressing on, method and methodology are usually used
interchangeably and has led to a range of different meanings(Mackenzie &
Knipe, 2006) Methodology can be understood as a system for the methodical
collection of data (O’ Toole & Beckett, 2010) which informs the choice of
research methods required to satisfy the question in our area of research. For
example if the researcher desires to utilise an ethnographic methodology (i.e.
studying a bounded population and their experiences) then this informs the types
of methods needed to compile the data (artefacts, semi-structured interviews,
observations etc.). However Grix (2002) takes a different approach, suggesting
that research methodology concerns itself ‘with the logic, potentialities and
limitations of the research methods.’ (pp. 179), with research methods linked to
the research question posed and the data sources involved. Mackenzie & Knipe
(2006, pp.196) differ from these definitions, suggesting that the most common
definitions suggest that methodology is the overall approach to research which
is connected to the choice of paradigm whereas method relates to the systemic
collection and analysis procedures
of data.


Nicaise,
Bois, Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino (2007) utilise a positivist paradigm
for the purposes of their research, mainly due to the researchers’ sole use of
quantitative questionnaires. Paired with this is the majority of the research in
the instruction and subsequent literature review is based on conclusion from
quantitative research, a large sample size of 333 participants (122 boys - 203
girls – four male teachers –four female teachers) and the decision to conduct
all student questionnaires on one occasion. Nicaise, Bois, Fairclough, Amorose
& Cogérino (2007) ultimately sought to use an inductive (theory building)
logic to complete two objectives;


·
To
assess the effects of student and teacher gender on physical education students’
perceptions of their teachers’ feedback and
time


·
To
determine whether PE students’ perceptions of their teachers’feedback and time
were related to students’ performance and psychosocial
growth.


To
achieve this Nicaise,
Bois, Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino (2007) utilised a positivist
methodology consisting of 4 separate quantitative questionnaires and one
demographic information sheet, which include;


·
Perceived
Teaching Feedback Questionnaire (PTFQ)


·
Students
perception of teachers’ invested time


·
Perceived
competence, effort-importance and
interest-enjoyment


·
Physical
education performance



The questionnaire sequence was structured for the students to
complete the first three questionnaires with the first 15 minutes of one of
their physical education classes during February 2005, with the physical
education performance questionnaire being conducted in November 2004 and June
2005.

Davis & Nicase (2011) however use deductive reasoning (or
theory driven reasoning) to test if physical education teachers still exhibit
inequitable teaching practices, namely through Schon’s (2000) Theory of
reflective practice which focuses on the lack of physical education teachers’
knowledge on inequitable teaching practices. To achieve this Davis & Nicase
(2011) utilise a pragmatic paradigm, which is evident by their choice of
research question;


·
What
are the self-perceptions of the physical education teachers about their verbal
interactions with male and female students


·
Are
there differences between teachers at rural and urban high schools regarding
practices in relation to gender interactions with
students


·
Are
self-perceptions of each teacher compatible with their practices regarding
gender relations?


This
is paired with use of a qualitative methodology which takes precedence over the
use of quantitative methods to make their research claims and discuss their
findings in relation to other research conducted in gender interactions in
secondary education. Triangulation can be viewed as another indicator of their
pragmatic approach, as the researchers aim to substantiate their claims by
utilising three separate methods for collecting data. Davis
& Nicase (2011) utilise audio taped interviews and video-taped observations
of teacher behaviour, detailed field notes were taken. The four teachers
participated in semi-structured interviews separately before and after the
research process; with individualised follow up questions were used so the
participants could fully discuss their experiences. These interviews were
audio-taped, transcribed and ‘member checked’ to ensure reliability and
validity.

Davis
& Nicase (2011) also kept a research journal throughout the research
process, which serves two purposes; firstly the researchers are able to reflect
on their performance throughout the project, potentially furthering their
careers and knowledge. The second reason for this would be adopting a rigorous
reflexivity approach in their research. Subedi (2006) claims that by doing so
the researcher is being open and accountable for the knowledge created,
therefore challenging the notion of the‘all knowing’ or perfect researcher
(which ties into what constitutes ethical conduct in educational
research)

Data Analysis


Davis & Nicase (2011) analysed their data in two phases; a
quantitative analysis of the observation data to compare expected and observed
interactions and a qualitative ‘cross-case’ analysis of the teacher interviews,
the video-taped observations of teacher behaviour and field notes to investigate
the link between the teachers’ espoused theories and their
actions.

(Video) Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Methods in Research Simplified!

The
first aspect of analysis (Quantitative analysis) consisted of four steps
transcribing and coding 24 video-taped classes, focussing on the interactions
the teachers’had with their male and female students, quantifying the frequency
of instances in verbal categories and then assessing inter-rater reliability
concluded the data analysis. For the purposes of coding, the researchers used a
pre-determined procedure based from Martinek & Mancini’s (1989) dyadic
teacher-student observational tool. Davis & Nicase (2011) developed their
four categories (praise, questioning, informational and criticism) by combining
the existing six categories of
Martinek
& Mancini’s approach (praise, acceptance, asks questions, gives information,
gives direction and criticism), but did not elaborate the rationale behind this.
The lessons were then coded by two experienced researcher-observants with
Krippendorff’s alpha (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007) which established
inter-rater reliability. According to Davis & Nicase (2011), Krippendorff’s
alpha is based around comparing the expected and observed logic of the
chi-square calculation.

Moving onto the qualitative analysis, each participant was
individually interviewed, video-taped, transcribed and analysed to discover
common themes which emerged in regards to gender interactions with students. The
researchers then met to form a consensus on key themes which emerged from there
analysis of the raw data with a cross-case analysis performed to look for
similarities and differences. To check the reliability of the data, the
researchers performed a‘member check’ of the constructed interpretation of the
interviewees responses, that being through discussion with the participant to
see if the data reflected their experiences (Freeman, deMarrais, Preissle,
Roulston & Pierre 2007); All participants confirmed that the qualitative
data was accurate and correct.

Nicaise, Bois, Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino (2007)
analysed their data through a 2X2 (Student gender X teacher gender) Multivariate
analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to view students’ perception around teacher
feedback and how teacher gender moderated the differences. In conjunction with a
MANCOVA the authors explored gender differences in Intrinsic Motivation
Inventory variables with a separate MANCOVA and tested for gender differences in
initial PE performance using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). To finish their
analysis, Nicaise, Bois, Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino (2007) utilised four
regression analyses to test between the hypothesised connection between PTFQ
variables and students perceived competence, effort, enjoyment and
performance.

However
Likert based questionnaires can be problematic (Oliver, 2000) as Nicaise, Bois,
Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino utilised three Likert methods in their study.
Tergan
(1998) suggests that evaluation based checklists have three key
weaknesses:


  • Unknown reliability and validity of criteria; which leans
    toward the idea that different assessors can allocate different ratings on
    items of the same category, affecting both the validity and reliability of
    results.

  • Shortcomings for assessing instructional efficacy; relating
    to the failure of evaluators to take in account of learners cognitive
    preconditions.

  • Lack of tailored criteria; which relates to a generalised
    and inflexible structure of the checklist to target specific
    aspects

Triangulation
is one way of testing validity;
Triangulation
is a process where data or results are corroborated with two other independent
sources to suggest the research data is actually reliable
(Jick,
1979). O’ Toole & Beckett (2010) however raise a critical argument to this,
suggesting that researchers believe triangulation is too positivistic in
nature, as it requires fixed points of reference. This is due to the‘empherial’
nature of education research, as it is ever fluid and like most aspects of
education, in a constant state of shift
(Sikes,
2006). Considering this, reliability then would need to be called into question,
if educational research is in fact in constant shift, how can we (as
researchers) insure that our research data is valid?

(Video) Complex Research Terminology Simplified: Paradigms, Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology

O’ Toole & Beckett (2010) suggest that researchers should
focus on four new key words in educational research; that being plausibility,
credibility, resonance
and transferability.
From this the researcher can collect and analyse data
to mount an argument that plausible (i.e. Not easily disproven), creditable in
the sense that other researchers accept the results, has resonance with similar
findings in their field of research and transferable to other contexts outside
of the initial study area.

Ethical considerations


Informed consent is the central idea surrounding research
ethics, with Howe & Moses, (1999) suggesting that it is up to the
participants to weigh the risks of participating in research studies and the
only way for this to occur is for participants to be informed about and
essentially understand the research process. Both articles claimed to have
received written consent from their research participants but no there has
mention of the researchers giving the option for the participants (or guardians
in the case of minors) to withdraw from the study at any time and in turn
require the removal of data. This is a huge ethical concern when considering
conducting research with minors as it can suggest that initial informed consent
is final in the research process.


A
special consideration needs to be made due to the fact that the majority of the
research conducted in both papers was on children and adolescents (less than 18
years of age). This suggests that the participants may be vulnerable or coerced
into participation or disclosing unnecessary details; Morrow & Richards
(1996) suggest that children are essentially vulnerable in two ways, physically
with a lack of knowledge and experience and structurally due to a lack of
political and economic power; both potentially making them vulnerable to adult
influence. Although
Morrow
& Richards (1996) may have been writing exclusively about individuals which
may not be considered adolescent or‘pre-adult’, both research papers suggest the
bulk of participants are aged between 12-16 years of age. Both
research groups however approached the ethical implications of their research
by seeking permission from the institutional review board of their university,
both schools’ research offices and the superintendent of the district. The
researchers then received informed consent of all four teachers, the parents of
students and received assent from the students themselves; also the researchers
sought to provide anonymity for the participants and used pseudonyms for the
teachers and schools involved.


However
It can be assumed that both research teams failed to recognise how and where
data would be stored, what protections are placed on the data to prevent
external individuals ( i.e. outside of the research team) and how and if data
which has been collected will be destroyed. O’ Toole & Beckett (2010, pp.101)
suggest ethical research should entail details of the treatment of participant
data, including storage and possible destruction of materials which are
identifiable to the research participants. The only exception to this was by
Nicaise, Bois, Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino (2007) who simply stated that
the students were assured that their responses would remain confidential and
their teachers would not see their answers, but still fall short of explaining
how this would be done. This highlights Howe & Moses (1999) concept that
privacy during and even after research is the second most important
consideration for educational researchers in regard to the ethical treatment of
research participants, however ethical treatment of participants is subjective
to the researcher as mentioned earlier with Davis & Nicase (2011) opting to
include a research journal to be critiqued by themselves, peers and potentially
the research participants themselves (Subedi,
2006)


Power in research


Davis &Nicase
(2011) detail in their data collect method that in order to reduce reactivity
and social desirability bias
(Fisher, 1993) whichconcerns participants acting in a way feel is right or
acceptable in response to being studied, the first two days of the 8 day
bi-weekly study was discarded. Researcher bias was also a significant concern
for Davis & Nicase (2011), in response to this analysis of the data was
verified by colleagues for reliability, the written reports of case studies were
shared with their respective participant for verification, maintaining a journal
of the research process, following the guidance of previous researchers and
searching for negative instances. In regards to video recorded observations
Davis& Nicase (2011) utilised trained college students in order to limit the
influence of the researcher figure in the classroom and by taking the
aforementioned approach, the power of the researcher in research is
reduced.


Davis &Nicase
(2011) however fail to detail the setting in which the interviews take place; is
it an open space such as a gymnasium, is it a conference room with a large table
separating them or even is it an intimate staff room with the researcher next to
the participant? Mallozzi (2009) highlights the potential environmental
influence on both the researcher and participant, which influences the
credibility of the responses and interpretations which result. Mallozzi does
this by constructing a scenario based around an interview she was preparing to
conduct, with considerations of armchairs and indoor plants being‘trumped’ by a
12 seated table which dominates the room; this triggers her internal dialog
between the three competing research voices, consisting of Postie
(Post-structuralist), Libby (Feminist) and Ed (post-positivist). Questions the
use of empathy arises when considering that a feminist approach encourages a
construction of empathy and environmental influence around socialisation and
rapport where as a post-positivist would argue for a construction of empathy
around maintaining neutrality.


Nicaise, Bois, Fairclough, Amorose & Cogérino (2007) however
eluded to the students’ completing the questionnaires immediately before
physical education classes, suggesting that the students were situated in a
gymnasium (so a wide open space) with their teacher absent; however the authors
fail to detail the layout of the students in relation to the researchers
themselves, how many researchers were present what was the ratio of male to female
researchers in the setting and were the students clustered together or spread
apart? All factors considered it can only be assumed that at least one
researcher was present at each school for the purposes of the questionnaires
(both for students and teachers), which resonates with the power issues
previously eluded to by Mallozzi (2009)


Conclusion


Research can take on various forms, such as the expression of a
population using figures through quantitative means or constructing in-depth
stories of the individuals lived experience through qualitative case studies, as
shown with the two research articles, different approaches to research design
are impossible to distinguish as the best form of educational research. These
articles successfully articulate how two different paradigms can converge to
articulate the same phenomenon in physical education teachers’
practice.


This has been illustrated by the differing ontological and
epistemological position of each article framing the development of the
individual research methods and methodologies, which were clearly articulated
and grounded in their respective
philosophical literature. Unfortunately research ethics was not discussed during
most of the research papers under analysis leaving the reader to make
assumptions upon what ethical research in education looks like.



Just as importantly this research process has highlighted the
responsibility of the researcher to develop and article what ethical research
entails and the potential influence of power relations on the research process,
especially during data collection and analysis. This is essential for the
development and growth of the beginning researcher in the social sciences as it
allows for the development of awareness of the major influences and shifts in
educational paradigms and research convections.



References


Darlaston-Jones, D. (2007). "Making connections: the
relationship between epistemology and
research methods." The Australian
Community Psychologist Vol.19 No. 1,
pp.19-27


Davis, K & Nicase, V. (2011), Teacher student
interactions: Four case studies of gender in
physical education, Journal of Classroom Interaction, Vol. 46, No.2,
pp.11-23


Fisher,
R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect
questioning.
Journal of Consumer Research, pp.303-315.
Freeman, M.,
Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & Pierre, E. A. S. (2007). Standards of
evidence
in qualitative
research: An incitement to discourse. Educational researcher, Vol.36, No1, pp.
25-32.


Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering
the call for a standard reliability measure for
coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, Vol.1,
No.1,
pp. 77-89.
Howe, K. & Moses, M. (1999). Ethics in educational research.
Review of Research in
Education, vol. 24,
pp. 21-60


Jick,
T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in
action. Administrative science
quarterly
, Vol.24, No.4, pp. 602-611.
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods
and social justice. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, Vol.1, No.2, pp.212-225

Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with
children: An
overview. Children& society, Vol.10, No.2, pp.
90-105.


Nicaise, V., Bois, J. E., Fairclough, S. J.,
Amorose, A. J., & Cogérino, G. (2007). Girls'
and boys' perceptions of physical education teachers' feedback: Effects
on
performance and psychological responses. Journal Of Sports
Sciences
, Vol.25, No.8, pp. 915-926

(Video) David James: How to get clear about method, methodology, epistemology and ontology, once and for all

Oliver, M. (2000) An introduction to the Evaluation of Learning Technology.
Educational
Technology & Society
, Vol. 3, No.4, pp.
20-30.


O'Toole, J. & Bennett, D. (2010). Educational research:
Creative Thinking & Doing. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press

Sikes, P. (2006). On dodgy ground? Problematics and ethics in educational
research. International
Journal of Research & Method in Education
, 29(1),
105-117.


Subedi, B (2006) Theorizing a ‘halfie’ researcher’s identity in
transnational fieldwork,
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol.19,
No.5,
pp. 573-593

Tergan,
S. O. (1998). Checklists for the evaluation of educational software:
critical review
and prospects. Innovations in education and training international,
Vol.35,
No.1, pp.9-20.

FAQs

What is ontology epistemology and methodology? ›

Ontology defines your research framework while epistemology determines the research questions that you will need to answer. Together, ontology, epistemology and methodology form an all-encompassing system of interrelated practice and thinking that defines the nature of your research.

What are the 4 research paradigms? ›

Research Paradigms Described

Four major paradigms seem to compete in qualitative inquiry: positiv- ism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism .

What is ontology epistemology axiology and methodology? ›

the nature of reality and of what really exists (ontology) the relationship between the knower and what is known (epistemology) what we value (axiology) the strategy and justifications in constructing a specific type of knowledge (methodology), as linked to individual techniques (method/s).

What is epistemology and methodology? ›

As shorthand, epistemology can be thought of as justification of knowledge. A methodology is defined as “a theory and analysis of how research should proceed” (Harding, 1987, p. 2), “analysis of the assumptions, principles, and proce- dures in a particular approach to inquiry” (Schwandt, 2001, p.

What are the 3 types of epistemology? ›

There are three main examples or conditions of epistemology: truth, belief and justification.

Is ontology a methodology? ›

Alternatively, objectivism “is an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors”[4].
...
Ontology.
Research philosophyOntology: the researcher's view of the nature of reality or being
PositivismExternal, objective and independent of social actors
3 more rows

What are the 5 paradigms? ›

These five paradigms are 1) individual differences, 2) group behavior, 3) organizational behavior, 4) human factors, and 5) cognitive science.

Is ontology a paradigm? ›

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), a paradigm comprises four elements, namely, epistemology, ontology, methodology and axiology.

What is a research methodology? ›

What is Research Methodology? Research methodology is the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information about a topic. In a research paper, the methodology section allows the reader to critically evaluate a study's overall validity and reliability.

What are the types of ontology? ›

The four categories are object, kind, mode and attribute. The fourfold structure is based on two distinctions. The first distinction is between substantial entities (objects and kinds) and non-substantial entities (modes and attributes).

What is an example of ontology? ›

The greatest example of an ontological argument is that of God. Have you ever argued with a friend or family member about the existence of God? In the 11th century, St. Anselm of Canterbury argued that God existed, because he existed in our understanding.

What is the difference between ontology and epistemology? ›

Ontology is concerned with what is true or real, and the nature of reality. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and different methods of gaining knowledge.

Is ontology qualitative or quantitative? ›

TABLE 1 Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Compared
Quantitative approach
Ontology (views on reality)Single, objective, and independent reality exists and it can be known or described as it really is.
Relationship between facts and valuesFacts can be separated from values due to separation of mind and world.
10 more rows
6 Feb 2011

What is ontological approach? ›

An ontological approach looks at the things the data is about and uses them as the basis for the structure of the data. If you correctly identify the things that are important to the business, and the relationships between them, then you will have developed a data model in 6th Normal Form.

What comes first ontology or epistemology? ›

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.

What are the 5 sources of knowledge? ›

According to Donald Ary (2010:2-8), there are five major sources of knowledge. Those are experience, authority, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and scientific approach. Experience is a familiar and well-used source of knowledge.

What are the 4 branches of logic? ›

Logic in general can be divided into Formal Logic, Informal Logic and Symbolic Logic and Mathematical Logic:
  • Formal Logic: ...
  • Informal Logic: ...
  • Symbolic Logic: ...
  • Mathematical Logic:

What are the four branches of epistemology? ›

Derived from the Greek word episteme, meaning knowledge or understanding, epistemology refers to the nature and origin of knowledge and truth. Epistemology proposes that there are four main bases of knowledge: divine revelation, experience, logic and reason, and intuition.

What is an example of epistemology? ›

An example of epistemology is a thesis paper on the source of knowledge. (uncountable) The branch of philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge; theory of knowledge, asking such questions as "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?".

What is another word for ontology? ›

In this page you can discover 21 synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for ontology, like: the nature of being, philosophy of existence, cosmology, metaphysics, schemas, ontology-based, semantics, domain-specific, hypermedia, object oriented and natural language.

How many research paradigms are there? ›

The three paradigms (positivist, constructivist, and critical) which are different by ontological, epistemological, and methodological aspects are also often included in the classification of scholarly paradigms [19].

What are examples of paradigms? ›

An example of a paradigm is the majority of the people on Earth accepting the viewpoint that the cosmology of the Earth was a flat disk with upturned edges. The subsequent paradigm was that the Earth was a sphere.

What are your paradigms? ›

A paradigm can be likened to a program that has been installed in your subconscious mind. It's a mental program that has almost exclusive control over your habitual behavior. When you think about it, you'll realize that virtually all of your behavior is part of a routine.

What are paradigms in life? ›

A paradigm shift is a dramatic new way of thinking or seeing something. A paradigm is a shift that happens when the standard method of thinking or doing something is replaced by something new and is adapted by several people. Paradigm shifts have happened in our modern world and will continue to happen.

What are the 3 components of a paradigm? ›

Paradigms Have Three Parts: Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics.

What is your epistemology? ›

In simple terms, epistemology is the theory of knowledge and deals with how knowledge is gathered and from which sources. In research terms your view of the world and of knowledge strongly influences your interpretation of data and therefore your philosophical standpoint should be made clear from the beginning.

What are the two main research paradigms? ›

Within research, there are two main paradigms, namely positivist and interpretive. The paradigm that a researcher uses depends on where they see themselves in relation to the world around them as well as their views and thoughts.

What are the 5 parts of methodology? ›

5 Key Elements of Methodology Section of a Research Paper
  • Logic of Inquiry (Qualitative or Quantitative) ...
  • Research Setting and participants. ...
  • Methods and Procedure of Data Collection. ...
  • Methods and Procedure of Data Analysis. ...
  • Ethical Issues.
1 Feb 2021

What is research paradigm? ›

A research paradigm is a model or approach to research that is considered the standard by a substantial number of researchers in the field based on having been both verified and practiced for a long period of time.

What is the difference between methodology and methods? ›

Methods are just behavior or tools used to select a research technique. Methodology is analysis of all the methods and procedures of the investigation. Methods are applied during the later stage of the research study. Methodologies are applied during the initial stage of the research process.

Who is the father of ontology? ›

The term is generally credited to the great Ionian mathematician, scientist, and religious mystic Pythagoras who lived circa 570 BCE.

What is ontology used for? ›

Ontology Use Cases

In a nutshell, ontologies are frameworks for representing shareable and reusable knowledge across a domain. Their ability to describe relationships and their high interconnectedness make them the bases for modeling high-quality, linked and coherent data.

What is epistemology the study of? ›

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of knowledge? Do we know things? And if we do, how and when do we know things?

What is epistemology in simple words? ›

Epistemology is the study of knowledge acquisition. It involves an awareness of certain aspects of reality, and it seeks to discover what is known and how it is known. Considered as a branch of philosophy, epistemology addresses cognitive sciences, cultural studies and the history of science.

What are the main questions of ontology? ›

When we ask deep questions about "what is the nature of the universe?" or "Is there a god?" or "What happens to us when we die?" or "What principles govern the properties of matter?" we are asking inherently ontological questions.

What is the link between ontology and epistemology? ›

In other words, epistemology deals with theories of knowledge. Ontology is concerned with the existential conditions related to material, social, cultural and political contexts. Hence, the question of relations between epistemology and ontology assumes importance.

How do you identify a paradigm? ›

To select a research paradigm the researcher needs to ask some questions to himself. The answers to these questions will enable the researcher decide what paradigm can be used in the research. What is the nature of the research problem that needs to be studied?

What is the opposite of epistemology? ›

noun. ( ɛˌpɪstəˈmɑːləˌdʒiː) The philosophical theory of knowledge. Antonyms. internationalism nationalism monism imitation. methodology philosophy.

What is ontology and epistemology in qualitative research? ›

Ontology deals with what kinds of things exist. Epistemology deals with what we can know and how we can know it (the means and conditions for knowledge), including how we can know what exists.

What is ontology and epistemology in qualitative research? ›

Ontology deals with what kinds of things exist. Epistemology deals with what we can know and how we can know it (the means and conditions for knowledge), including how we can know what exists.

What is a research methodology? ›

What is Research Methodology? Research methodology is the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information about a topic. In a research paper, the methodology section allows the reader to critically evaluate a study's overall validity and reliability.

How is ontology and epistemology used in research? ›

Ontology, epistemology and research paradigm - YouTube

Why is ontology and epistemology important in research? ›

While ontology deals with the nature of reality, epistemology is concerned with the nature, limits and justification of human knowledge. Maintaining clear lines of distinction between ontology and epistemology is largely seen as essential for maintaining objectivity in research.

What are the types of ontology? ›

The four categories are object, kind, mode and attribute. The fourfold structure is based on two distinctions. The first distinction is between substantial entities (objects and kinds) and non-substantial entities (modes and attributes).

What is methodology in qualitative research? ›

Methodology refers to 'the theoretical, political and philosophical backgrounds to social research and their implications for research practice and for the use of particular research methods. It is the science of study of how research is done systematically.

Is ontology qualitative or quantitative? ›

TABLE 1 Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Compared
Quantitative approach
Ontology (views on reality)Single, objective, and independent reality exists and it can be known or described as it really is.
Relationship between facts and valuesFacts can be separated from values due to separation of mind and world.
10 more rows
6 Feb 2011

What are the 5 parts of methodology? ›

5 Key Elements of Methodology Section of a Research Paper
  • Logic of Inquiry (Qualitative or Quantitative) ...
  • Research Setting and participants. ...
  • Methods and Procedure of Data Collection. ...
  • Methods and Procedure of Data Analysis. ...
  • Ethical Issues.
1 Feb 2021

What is research paradigm? ›

A research paradigm is a model or approach to research that is considered the standard by a substantial number of researchers in the field based on having been both verified and practiced for a long period of time.

What is methodology example? ›

In this article we will be seeing various types of research methodology that are classified based on their common features and use.
...
Research Methodology Example.
methodologyPurposeExample
Qualitative researchIt is used collect, compare, analyse large descriptive data from the sampleStudy conducted to understand the effects of exercise on health
15 more rows
17 Dec 2021

What is example of ontology? ›

An example of ontology is when a physicist establishes different categories to divide existing things into in order to better understand those things and how they fit together in the broader world.

Is ontology a paradigm? ›

A research paradigm is a philosophical framework that your research is based on. It offers a pattern of beliefs and understandings from which the theories and practices of your research project operate. A research paradigm consists of ontology, epistemology, and research methodology.

What is the concept of ontology? ›

In brief, ontology, as a branch of philosophy, is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects. In simple terms, ontology seeks the classification and explanation of entities. Ontology is about the object of inquiry, what you set to examine.

What is an example of epistemology? ›

An example of epistemology is a thesis paper on the source of knowledge. (uncountable) The branch of philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge; theory of knowledge, asking such questions as "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?".

What is the difference between ontology and epistemology? ›

Ontology is concerned with what is true or real, and the nature of reality. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and different methods of gaining knowledge.

What is epistemology and ontology with examples? ›

Epistemology is the philosophical field revolving around (the study of) knowledge and how to reach it. One might say that it includes the ontology of knowledge. Examples of theories within the field of ontology are: ontological monism, pluralism, idealism, materialism, dualism, etc.

Videos

1. Research Paradigm Ontology Epistemology Methodology Methods
(Md. Azim)
2. Research Part 1: Paradigms and Methodology
(NurseKillam)
3. Research Philosophy - Key Concepts (Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology)
(Dr. Hu)
4. Ontology, Epistemology, Positivism and Interpretivism explained in (under) 5 minutes
(Research with Dr Kriukow)
5. What are Ontology & Epistemology?
(Philosophy Quest)
6. Ontology, Epistemology and Research Philosophies
(CONNECTING ASIA TV)

Top Articles

You might also like

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Duane Harber

Last Updated: 08/23/2022

Views: 6167

Rating: 4 / 5 (71 voted)

Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Duane Harber

Birthday: 1999-10-17

Address: Apt. 404 9899 Magnolia Roads, Port Royceville, ID 78186

Phone: +186911129794335

Job: Human Hospitality Planner

Hobby: Listening to music, Orienteering, Knapping, Dance, Mountain biking, Fishing, Pottery

Introduction: My name is Duane Harber, I am a modern, clever, handsome, fair, agreeable, inexpensive, beautiful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.