Lecture 3

ontology -> epistemology -> methodology

ontology and epistemology: we can’t just switch depending on our research question or preferred methodology - why? a researcher must be coherent across research (you can of course evolve, you can change you mind, but you can’t take opposing views on such a fundamental question due to preferences) ontology and epistemology are there prior to the research

• position in ontology: foundationalist view *not used by the lecturer in this way • position in epistemology: critical realism • substantive realism: IR theory

the study of the nature of being an ontology = a theory of being, about what is different kinds of ontological questions - what is the nature of reality? - what ‘‘really’’ exists? - is there a world ‘‘out there’’ independent of our experiences? - where is love? (Oliver quote, sung by Theuns) two main theories: relativist/anti-foundationalist and objectivism/foundationalism

questions concerned with nature of social entities • can and should they be considered objective (foundationalist) • or can and should they be seen as social constructs (anti-foundationalist) can vs. should: some say we should adopt an anti-foundational approach, as we only have access to the filtered version (filtered by peoples understanding, interaction of the external what) of the objective reality

the world is composed of discrete objects which possess properties that are independent of the observer there is a real world which exists independently of our knowledge of it causality operates independently of the observer

less intuitive realities are local and specific; they vary between individuals/groups (realities differ between time and space) reality isn’t discovered, it is actively constructed note: this doesn’t mean that they think there is no ‘real world’ which is ‘out there’, but rather that it doesn’t matter, this ‘real world’ has no causal power on social action independent of people’s understanding of it

study of what we CAN know theories of knowledge e.g. epistemological questions include: - what is knowledge? - are there boundaries to what we can know? (e.g. about the universe: can we know, can we theorize beyond what we can see)

epistemological questions always have an ontological element (what CAN we know, ABOUT…) taking a position on epistemological questions implicates a position on ontological questions e.g. will I ever know that sweet hello that’s meant for only me? - epistemological question - ontological element: the existence of a sweet hello

• how do I know whether other people have minds? • can we study social and political phenomena using the scientific method? • how do you know I brushed my teeth? • will i ever KNOW that sweet hello that’s meant for only me?

• if a tree falls when no one is around, does it still make sound • what is love? where is love? • what really exists?

• scientific/positivist • hermeneutic/interpretivist • critical realist

• linked to behaviouralism and rational choice theory epistemology + foundational approach to ontology goal: formulation of general laws and accurate predictions ability to predict how people are gonna behave in a certain fixed context links to the natural sciences approach: they are seen as relatively the same, social science should (as far as possible) follow natural science approach to science direct observation can serve as an independent test of the validity of a theory - normative and empirical claims can be entirely separated

'’Social scientists who only focus on only overt, observable behaviours are missing a lot, but how are we to know if we cannot see?’’ doesn’t say that it doesn’t exist, just says that we can’t describe/analyse it scientifically

mediation of concepts on sensory experience (every observation is mediated by concepts) = philosophical • when noting an observation you are forced to do so using concepts and language • concepts/language mediate what we observe: what we can observe is mediated between reality and concepts (guided by language) • e.g. owls: different race or just one that has pointy ears or not? -> different results/observations Theory guides fact-finding and interpretation: we can decide the facts are ‘wrong’ (to protect the theory: the observation must be wrong, not te theory) = sociological

trying to understand social and political behaviour rather than explaining it - verstehen and erklaren understanding relates to human reasoning and intentions as grounds for social action (self-reflection about position in the world, how this is contextualized in their behaviour) we can’t predict what individuals are going to do

there is a social/discursive construction of the world knowledge is theoretically and conceptually (and discursively) ‘laden’ we can’t unbiased acces social facts, we should focus on identifying discourses or traditions that make sense of interpretations of social phenomena

• they only offer subjective opinions (according to positivists) • how can we falsify interpretative claims? • do they constitute scientific knowledge?