Key Points: Chapter 2 Approaches to Research

Here’s more discussion of chapter 2.  Normally I don’t go into such detail but time was short on Wednesday, so I’m spoiling you this week!

First we said that ontology concerns the nature of reality. Is there a concrete social reality that we all encounter or do we each experience life as a series of unique, subjective events? We also focused on two extreme positions: 1) objectivism or realism, which maintains that we do share a common experience of reality, and 2) contructivism, which contends that our experiences and understandings of the world are completely unique to us and only us.

Next we said that epistemology is the study of knowledge. How can we best learn about something social? We focused on two extreme epistemological stances: 1) positivism, which advocates that we can study and learn through the objective application of scientific method, and 2) interpretivism, which asserts that social life is too complex to study methodically; instead we must immerse ourselves in research and do research on a case-by-case basis.

Okay, that’s the theory. Now let’s apply these general concepts to the specific experience of illness (or racism, homophobia, etc). Some 70,000 people die of cancer every year in Canada. Length of survival varies, as do types of treatment and care. There are many kinds of cancer with different causes. Is the experience of this illness the same or different for everyone?

When the text says that the ontological and epistemological stances of the researcher matter, this means that what we believe influences how we research issues.

1. An objectivist would argue: Although there is no single type of cancer or treatment, and although the disease attacks people’s bodies differently, as human beings we still share common experiences of pain, pleasure, sadness, and happiness. Therefore, people with cancer likely share many common experiences.

2. A constructivist would argue: Not only do types and treatments of cancer vary, but so do the ways that people ail and cope with the disease. Therefore the experience of this illness depends solely on the individual.

3. A positivist would argue: We can accurately study and learn about collective experience of having cancer is by asking many people systematic questions. If lots of people tell us the same (or similar) account, then that is likely a pretty accurate knowledge of the experience of this illness.

4. An interpretivist would argue: The way we accurately study and learn about the experience of this illness is to become deeply immersed in people’s lives. General questions only tell us so much; in-depth study of representative cases also yield valuable knowledge.  Only this will enable us to truly understand how people similarly or differently experience this disease.

You’re all entitled to your own epistemological and ontological positions on these. We care simply that you understand the different positions and how they influence the way we methodologically conduct research.