Assignment for Module 1

Ontology and Epistemology in Research Traditions

Erin E. Peters

Advanced Methods of Qualitative Research

Spring 2006

In order to examine my ontology and epistemology, I must first think beyond the logistics of my research projects and consider what I understand about how the world works. What are the important aspects about how knowledge is formed? Why do I consider these aspects important? I am modeling Jennifer Mason’s unfolding of her “difficult questions” because first she asks broad questions about ontology, followed by epistemology and then by the significance of the problem for investigation. Until faced with these ontological and epistemological questions in this class, I didn’t consider reflecting on these deep topics with regard to my research. I started thinking about research with the research question. I think this is ironic because my research questions (about metacognition and the nature of science) are so grounded in epistemology.

I begin by examining my ontology. As a scientist, I have always been intrigued by the big questions in the universe, and I suspect my engineering career was derailed by such thinking. Instead of striving for strict organization and simplicity in knowledge, I have a drive for complexity and interconnectedness. I am especially drawn by the idea that knowledge is tentative and as humans, we are constructing conceptual frameworks that best explain the evidence presented. Sources of my affinity for science are what I consider the “two parents” of science, a “truth” in nature that is illustrated by harmonies in phenomena and the understanding that each human has a perspective from which they must view the world. Because we can only know “truth” through human interpretation, we will really never understand nature as an objective reality. However, the time that humans are spending in refining their perspective of the “truth” is valuable to our existence. As humans build on prior knowledge, they develop a more connected understanding with the evidence presented by nature. As anyone who has worked in bench science can tell you, nature tends to hide and humans tend to unintentionally build barriers to discovering phenomena with their prior knowledge. I don’t really think that there is an objective reality that can be reached, because we are constantly reconstituting our conceptual frameworks. If there was an objective reality in nature to be identified, wouldn’t the scientific community have at least one conceptual framework that is in its final form? Even when the community of science thought that Newton’s laws were in a final form, Einstein came along to show Newton’s ideas were only a small part of goings on in the universe. I do believe, however, that our description of the world around us is meaningful, if not objective.

My epistemology is aligned with the nature of science. I see science as a community that operations with inherent rules about how knowledge is generated and verified. As in the nature of science, I require empirical evidence on which to base ideas, I recognize social interactions as valuable knowledge building scenarios, I appreciate the tentativeness of knowledge, I understand nature to be comprised of complex patterns throughout the universe (and social science), I recognize the importance of having common standards to compare against, and I believe creativity is required in order to make sense of new evidence. I see the science education community at odds with this type of epistemology, because science education as a whole operates as if scientific knowledge was a collection in its final form to be distributed to students. If this is true, how do students who go on to become scientists see the discipline of science as something more? How do these scientists proceed from workbench scientists to professional scientists who verify the knowledge that is being constructed? Scientists have functioned in a system where the knowledge constructed helps them to progress. How else can we determine reality?

I feel fortunate that my first experience on a research team was with design-based research, which draws from various types of research traditions. I learned from my experiences on the team that the research “problem”, research question and methodology are all interconnected. As I am developing as a researcher, I no longer begin with only a research question, and then determine the methodology. I operate under the assumption that I must consider the construct that is being addressed, the research questions that I am thinking about answering, and the methodologies available in designing a research project. I can think about how they are all connected by asking myself, “What are the best ways to show evidence to answer the proposed questions?”, “Will these questions and methods really get to the understanding I am trying to evoke?” and “What might researchers who have different experiences think of the rigor of this project?” I feel that the methodologies support the research questions in a project and the questions support the methodologies. Together they facilitate the telling the story of the research project.

I draw from all three dominant stances in the social sciences, positivism, interpretivism and critical theory, in my thinking about the necessity of research. Since I believe there are patterns and harmonies in nature, including the social sciences, then I understand the underlying reality as a positivist, although I don’t believe that humans can be relieved of their perceptions enough to ever recognize that reality. I believe that as scientists we are doing the best we can to describe the reality of nature, but it is a very elusive reality. We are collectively constructing our knowledge and checking each other’s rigor so that we have the best possible picture of reality that we can achieve. We will never know if it is the “true” reality, but the reality we construct is useful and meaningful to our lives. There is rigor in testing if our collective knowledge is intelligible, plausible and fruitful. In being intelligible we are checking if we the presented knowledge makes sense to us. Then we check the knowledge against our experiences, direct and vicarious. Then we see if the knowledge can be used in other settings. When knowledge passes these tests, it becomes meaningful and useful. I can also see myself drawing from critical theory because I am not satisfied with the way the education system continues to reproduce the power structures in American society. In particular the science education system continues to present science knowledge in its final form. You are successful in the science field when you gather enough of this knowledge in order to do benchwork and become a professional scientist. Only after you become a professional scientist are you allowed in the “elite” group who understands how scientific knowledge is obtained and verified as being scientific knowledge. This system intentionally leaves out the “laymen” who never have the opportunity to attain the understanding of the workings of the discipline of science. More recently, I have found that the advocates of teaching the nature of science are STILL under the assumptions that unless you can recite the aspects of the nature of science, you are deemed uneducated.

I also am beginning to understand knowledge in terms of layers and the layer’s immediacy to the learner, which also depends on both positivism and interpretivism. The knowledge that we construct can be reflected on in terms of magnification. If we look at large generalizations, we see connections and coherence but we also lose the detail needed to establish mechanisms. If we look at a more detailed layer of knowledge about a topic, we will see small interconnected complexity of a topic, but not see how the topic is meaningful in the large scenario. An expert would be able to not only see all of the layers of a particular topic, but also be able to recognize the value of the type of knowledge available at each layer. The positivist in me understands the patterns in our knowledge to be relatively stable, and the interpretivist in me understands that the perspective adopted in looking at knowledge also determines its usefulness.

My research focuses on developing student skills and knowledge so that they can experience science as a way of knowing. Attached to this memo is an opinion paper that more fully describes my intention to develop student understanding of scientific knowledge through my research. I am developing strategies so that students can recognize phenomena and think like scientists. The research I have accomplished so far on this topic has depended on three ontological stances, interpretivism, positivism, and critical theory. I believe people learn in a meaningful way when they can hook into their prior conceptual frameworks and either reconstruct the frameworks if there is cognitive dissonance or to further develop the frameworks if there is resonance. In this facet of my research, I am drawing from an interpretivist tradition because the outcomes of my research will be inconclusive unless the students and teachers I plan to do research with build on their knowledge. I plan on looking at the way students and teachers collectively develop knowledge, and would look at the shared experiences in an intervention as a way to identify mechanisms behind learning phenomena. I am drawing from a positivist stance in another facet of my research because I believe there are ways that there are definite ways that knowledge about science can be developed. I am exploring the realm of self-regulation in order to have tangible strategies in which to embed my interpretation regarding meaningful knowledge about science. The self-regulation strategies rely on cognitive, behavioral as well as environmental influences on student learning. Once I obtain some information on how students and teachers develop scientific knowledge and the workings of interventions in developing science as a way of knowing, I plan to examine the power structures involved in a science classroom and between the discipline of science and the discipline of science education. In this facet of my research, I am borrowing from the critical theory tradition. I feel strongly that the relationship between students and science teachers to a large extent determines how teachers portray the epistemology of science and how students develop attitudes toward science. If my preliminary research shows merit, I may have a meaningful intervention that could help in breaking down barriers that guide the “rite-of-passage” mentality that is ubiquitous in science and science education. Critical theory is difficult especially in the field of cognitive science because the oppression must first be recognized before it can be addressed.

I appreciate the time that we were given to think about this paper. I began my first version after our first class discussion and after several iterations; I have a very different paper. I am excited that after our class discussions, I am better able to distinguish the traditions and apply them to my own research. In my future life as a professional researcher, I know that my research designs will evolve and grow. I realize now that I must constantly be navigating the realms among ontology, epistemology and methodology in order to generate meaningful knowledge as a researcher.