Hi everyone,

I came accross with all these different terms and I kind of find it difficult understanding their differences and therefore meanings. I was wondering if any of you have a nice story to tell with examples that capture our interest and therefore conceptualising the meanings?

Thanks!

Ontology - how you view social reality.
Epistemology - how you come to know social reality.
Paradigm - set of beliefs / assumptions that guide actions.

Who is the better footballer - Ronaldo or Messi?
Positivist epistemology - would focus upon who had scored the most goals, who was quickest over a specific distance / measure how high they could jump etc. A positivist would focus upon determining this through objective and measureable quantities. Epistemologically you would come to know this through tests that were set up / observations / sending out large numbers of questionnaires to get statistical data etc and look at your quantitative evidence..

Interpretivist would take into account who else was in the team, the opposition that they played against, the positions that they took up on the field, how they felt on the day / how coachable they were etc. These would not be seen as measurable as such, but would be based upon perceptions and opininions. These would take into account temporal factors of time and space etc. You would come to know this through observation, interviewing so called experts etc. You might keep a reflexive diary of how you think that they have played.

Where you sat on the continuum between positivism and interpretivism would determine your position or the paradigm that you situated yourself in. Other paradigms could include critical, if for example you thought Ronaldo was discriminated against because he wasn't playing for Barcelona, and therefore is perceived to have less media exposure (just a thought!). The critical paradigm would seek to draw attention to this and change it. Without trying to complicate matters you could start to look at post-structuralism which takes into account relationships of power.

The paradigm determines how you will approach your research, which in turn determines how you will collect, record and analyse your data, and present your findings. The positivist would show who was the better player through a series of graphs and numbers etc, the interpretivist would look for their data in transcripts / notes etc.

Hope this helps.

Good morning Nisearch,

thank you so much for finding the time to reply back. I have printed your answer and I will read it more careful in conjuction with all the notes I have. I sometimes find it quite difficult to understand the differences etc just from reading from academic sources.

Once again, thank you! Especially after a long night of no sleep as my son was sick. I am so grateful for this PhD forum.. and the people who find time to help their colleagues :).

All the best,

It might help to get out a few books on 'how to do reasearch' in your chosed field as they usually cover these issues and discuss how they are understood and then applied in the type of research you are doing. :-)

I have been reading quite a lot to be honest. I think, for me, I find it easier if I discuss these issues with someone else and sometimes using simple examples as the one that Nisearch gave. I think ontology, paradigm, epistemology are quite abstract ideas for someone to grasp with out interacting with another human being.

My supervisor is not very keen on discussing these issues as he believes that these are terms that not necessarily everybody uses. I dont really agree with him... You need to know from where you stand and where you are looking.

Totally get what you are saying. Not very helpful of your supervisor!! ;-p

:))) My husband says that my supervisor does his job: helps me to rely on myself and become and independent researcher. However, I would like first to pass my viva (and all the stress that comes with it) and then I can become an independent researcher....! Thats fine, we have the phd forum for support!