Ontological
positions such as the positivist, constructivist, the emancipatory
standpoint theory and critical realism illustrate the same problem in
different ways, and assess and address the problems in different
ways. Those who have a standpoint theory, that takes a position on a
particular perspective, for example, seem to have a tunnel vision on
what they perceive as a problem. It can be roughly explained as they
do not discuss whether not a problem is really a problem or not -
they know what the problem is (Haraway 1988:578; Hekman
2001:346-347). The positivist vision may also seem to have a very
determinations idea of how
facts about a problem is collected and determinable by objective
measurements. The constructivist way of looking at it is to discuss
whether a problem really is a problem, then they mean that the
experience of a phenomenon can be subjective - What appears to be a
problem in a certain society, may not be so in another. Critical
realism seems to be a mixture of these, since it claims that there is
both a definite reality that we can relate to, and that the problems
we are experiencing is a problem (whether it is subjective or not)
(Sayer 2000:19, 22). A problem of social science can be to choose how
to attack the problem and gather around one aspect of what is
sustainable development. It however seems that many different
ontological positions often choose to attack the same, problem but in
their own ways.
The
different epistemological (the idea of how and what kind of data they
can gather) is obviously affected also by one's ontology. In the case
of urban crime positivists would try to collect objective facts. They
would measure how urban crime looked at one location. Constructivists
would instead look at how the site was perceived by those using it
and what kind of social conditions that lead to urban crime.
Standpoint theorists, on the other hand, here would probably gather
data that supported their standpoint. The critical realists would
combine the data collection from the various ways that both
positivist, constructivists and "standpointers" use.
What
also differs between the different ontological conceptions and the
methodology used, is the axiological ideals claim that something is
good and something else is bad. Research about differences in
educational level among various ethnic groups can have different
values in different researchers eyes what they constitutes a good
education and a poor education. The pure positivists might want to
measure knowledge in "objective" terms (one such example is
the PISA survey), while the realists and constructivists may have an
understanding that different forms of knowledge are rewarded
differently in different places, depending on local needs, it's a
"situated objective" way of researching (Sayer 2000:32) .
The positivist seem to have a clearer and more specific picture of
what is right knowledge, while the realists and constructivists view
on what is right knowledge is fluid.
References
Haraway,
Donna. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism
and the privilege of
partial perspective. Feminist studies 14 (3), 575-599.
Hekman,
Susan. (1997). Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory
Revisited. Signs 22 (2), 341-365.
Sayer,
Andrew (2000). Realism and social science. London: SAGE
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar