- [Alex Lyon] Let's unpack epistemology, ontology, and axiology. I would like to give this
lesson a little warning: please do not throw these
words around at parties. There is no quicker way to kill the mood than to mention these three terms. Please, only bring them up in class, or around your academic friends. (shining music) So first, let's do a little overview. These are the terms that
describe the often unspoken assumptions about knowledge,
people in society, and our values that rest beneath our favorite theories or
our favorite research. Each of them corresponds to a branch of philosophy, which can be very abstract. Let's not let that confuse
us, because most people, most people doing research,
don't spend vast amounts of time writing directly about epistemology,
ontology, and axiology. The way it normally plays out
is that researchers are just going about their research,
and these areas or assumptions remain implied beneath the surface. The research will leave clues,
and so if they're so assumed, or beneath the surface, then
why do we even talk about them? Well, understanding these
three areas will help us gather a better appreciation,
and be able to compare and contrast different areas of research at a much more sophisticated level. So there is some payoff here. So let's start with epistemology. We'll go from general to specific. This is a branch of philosophy that studies knowledge, or knowing. They ask questions like: how do we know what we claim to know? That's the classic
epistemological question that you'll see in a lot of
theory and research textbooks. A researcher might assume,
for example, that knowledge is already out there, just
waiting to be discovered. And so, it's our job, as
researchers, to uncover this universal, unchanging,
and absolute truth. In contrast, other researchers
believe that people develop knowledge based upon how they perceive the world and
through their experiences. That's how we create knowledge. Still further along this spectrum
is the relativistic view, that believes that knowledge
is a social construction. In essence, whatever we treat
as knowledge, is knowledge. There is no universal or absolute truth. These are epistemological positions that are getting at this notion of knowledge. Like I said, most researchers
don't spend many paragraphs in each given journal article
spelling all of this out. They normally just get on with their work. But their research will
leave clues, and I see that epistemology is most evident in the methods that they use to
conduct their research. In other words, if they
assume an objective reality, objective knowledge, exists out there, then they will approach it that way. For instance, some organizational researchers do climate surveys. These are quantitative surveys driven by statistical analysis, and the idea here is if you ask the right
questions, you'll get reliable and valid answers, and
the results are meant to give you a snapshot
of how things really are. In other words, there's an
objective reality out there, and our survey is trying to show it. In contrast, there are other
ways to get at knowledge, other beliefs about the
best way to know something. For example, the ethnographic
method believes that to really understand, to really know, you have to experience
something for yourself. You can't study culture, from
the ethnographic standpoint, for example, from a distance. Firsthand knowledge gained through experience is the best way to know. These are epistemological kinds of issues. Next, let's explore ontology. Again, we'll go from general to specific. This is the branch of philosophy that studies [existence and the nature of human beings [and our existence] What is the nature of [existence and] our existence as individuals in society, in the universe? Who are we, what are we here for? These are ontological questions. For example, do we make
real free will choices? Do we make choices that
influence the outcomes? Or, are there forces that are determining our outcomes, that are beyond our control? Another ontological
question would be this: Are we best understood as individuals? Or, is our nature best viewed as being part of a group, part of a social system? There's a movie called
I, Robot for example, an old movie with Will
Smith, and in this story, there's a robot named Sonny,
and he's very sophisticated, and he's trying to figure
out why the guy who made him made him, what is his purpose? And that's an ontological question. There's a bit of dialogue
where somebody asks him: Sonny, do you know why
Dr. Lanning built you? And he answers: no, but I believe my father made me for a purpose. This is an ontological discussion. What is our nature, what are we here for? For me, the ontological
assumptions beneath research and theory are
pretty easy to spot. So for example, if they're
studying individuals, like through personality
tests, or trying to figure out people's traits, then they likely are approaching us as individuals in society. If they are studying
groups, and relationships, then they are likely
assuming that people are best understood in
groups and relationships, like through the communication
field or sociology. Another look at this is how
we are situated in society in terms of the larger
forces that we face. For example, does a
theorist treat people as if they are at the mercy of a system that is out of their control, out of their hands? Or, do they focus on the agency that people have to influence change? Depending upon their position,
they are taking different ontological positions, or
assumptions, about their research. And you can usually see that
in the way they write it up. And third, let's talk about axiology. Again, we'll go from general to specific. This is a branch of philosophy
that studies values. They ask questions about the values that guide our research to begin with. For example, what do we
consider to be good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful
or not, what do we value? Another axiological issue
is what values might result from, or be the
outcome of, our research? Axiology often asks questions
about the extent to which our research can be totally
neutral, or does our researcher opinion come into play, and
our personal values shape, how we conduct and write up our research? Also, should our research be
seeking merely to understand what we are studying, or
should we be studying something with a goal of changing
society for the better? That's an axiological question. And if we wanna change society,
what do we consider better? In other words, what do we value? Would it be more economic equality, better health, deeper relationships? These are all axiological issues. Sometimes, researchers and writers are pretty obvious about this, but not always. Martin Buber is a guy who's
a communication philosopher, and he's been very obvious about this. He talked about an ethical
approach to communication that contrasted with a
more mechanistic approach. So he talks about I-It,
meaning I am a person, but you, it, are an object, but we
really should strive for, as often as we can, I-Thou
communication, where I am important in the communication,
but you, you're a thou, you're also important,
you have inherent dignity, you're special as a human
being, and I should treat you that way, we should
connect through dialogue. See, he has an explicit
value for other people, and it's going to shape the
way he does his research. So when I first got exposed
to epistemology, ontology, and axiology, and began
to take it seriously, I developed a much more
sophisticated reading of the research that I was exposed to. I didn't see them all as
separate and independent pieces, I saw them all as having
similar or different kinds of assumptions that
informed their approach.
