Epistemology and ontology: foundational concepts and distinctions

POSITIVISM vs. INTERPRETIVISM DEBATE

Epistemology and Ontology

For my part, however, I no longer want to be labeled as a positivist researcher or an interpretive researcher. It is time for us to move beyond labels and to see the underlying unity in what we are trying to achieve via our research methods. The commonalities in my view are compelling and paramount. We ought to celebrate them because they underpin the value of our role as scholars. The differences, on the other hand, are ancillary. We should understand them, but they should not divide us. The challenge for us now is to rethink and develop a new rhetoric so we come to a deeper understanding of the metatheoretical assumptions that underlie our research. (Weber, 2004, X)

Weber's declaration is at the heart of this paper's examination. The paper attempts to gauge the frameworks of three articles in relation to Weber's concerns and ideas. Weber contends that the debate between positivism and intrepretivism is unnecessary and hampers research. The paper seeks to test the frameworks of the articles to see which ideas or combination of ideas provides the best explanation as to why this debate continues to persist. Ultimately the paper argues that it is the combination of Realistic Conflict Theory and Perspective Making & Taking that work best so as to provide an explanation for the debate's continued existence.

Weber states what his own thoughts are regarding the debate. He provides a few reasons or suggestions as to why the debate exists at all and continues to flourish in the research community.

I suspect that one major reason has been the difficulties positivists have in understanding the arcane language used by some interpretivists language that is rooted in the works of certain philosophers. If in the first place one does not understand clearly the alleged differences between positivism and interpretivism, it is easy to understand why one engages in any debunking exercise with some fear and trepidation…if we used simple language rather than arcane language when we engaged in discourse. I remain concerned that the enduring rhetoric reflects another problem. Specifically…All of us are affected by biases and prejudices of some sort when we evaluate another colleague's work. We cannot avoid them. To the extent we are reflexive researchers, however, hopefully we have developed self-awareness of some of our biases and prejudices. We then can then take steps to mitigate their effects. (Weber, 2007, X -- XI)

Thus one of the initial problems with the debate is that people do not fully understand the terms. There is a great deal of confusion and presumption regarding what positivism and intepretivism means. Not knowing what the terms mean definitively serves as a deterrent in engaging with, let alone dismantling and ceasing the debate. He suggests aptly to keep things simple. Certainly researchers will encounter enough difficulty and challenges just as part of the research process. Weber also supports awareness over fear toward individual and other kinds of biases. What is most important is to acknowledge and accept biases as a step to diminish or limit them; the worst thing to do would be to deny biases exist at all.

The paper will try to compare and contrast three alternative theoretical rationales as explanatory mechanisms for why the rhetoric of positivism vs. interpretivism has persisted.

The first rationale to be examined is by Becker and Niehaves. (2007) Their study is with regard to Information Systems. (IS). Their framework is based upon the possible answers to five questions:

I. What is the object of cognition? (Ontological aspect),

II. What is the relationship between cognition and the object of cognition?,

III. What is true cognition? (Concept of truth),

IV. Where does cognition originate?,

V. By what means can cognition be achieved? (Methodological aspect). (Becker and Niehaves, 2007,-Page 202)

Becker and Niehaves' framework supports Weber's final declarations about not being so hung up on differences. The first section of their paper is a discussion of how an interdisciplinary approach and perspective is more viable as a strategy. The graphic representation of their framework is contingent on the use and application of multiple theories, ideas, concepts, etc. from a variety of thinkers. Their approach is more integrative and holistic.

Ashforth and Humphrey argue for the use of labeling theory which they explain as the following:

An emerging theme in organizational behavior is that organizations are interpretive structures or frameworks…To act, an organizational member must come to some under-standing of what various social objects-actions, individuals, events, groups, decisions, structures-mean within the organizational context. However, given the inherent ambiguity and multiple causes and forces acting on many social objects, meaning is elusive. Accordingly, meaning has been described as socially constructed and symbolically mediated as individuals at-tempt to resolve ambiguity by triangulating on a more or less shared interpretation of organizational experience. We argue that a critical vehicle for interpreting, organizing, and communicating experience within organizations and, in turn, for guiding experience, is the label. (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997,-Page 43)

Labeling theory may contribute to the linguistic red tape that Weber argues is a big reason why the debate continues. The argue that labeling is necessary for clarity, but Weber would argue that a theory or practice like this has been used in excess if he were to connect or use this concept as a reason why the debate has persisted. Labeling theory is supposed to provide clarity, but Weber would contend with respect to this debate that labeling theory contributes clutter. Boland and Tenkasi's (1995) concept and study is regarding perspective making and taking in communities of knowing. Perspective like time and culture are relative. This argument or rationale is valuable, but it lends itself to interpretivism over positivism, at least indirectly contributing or participating in the debate.

Jackson performs a rigorous study on Realistic conflict theory (RCT), or realistic group conflict theory. (1993). (RGCT) is a social-psychological model of intergroup conflict. Jackson uses the theory to explain hostility within groups. According to RCT, hostility arises as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources. Group members and groups compete for a real or perceived lack of resources such as money, political power, or social status. The length and severity of the conflict is determined by the perceived value and shortage of a given resource. Harmony can be restored only if goals that can only be achieved through the combined efforts occurs.