Chapter 1:

Ontology and Epistemology

in Political Science
Henrick Yson
Estefany Sapla
I. Ontology and Epistemology
A. Ontology
• The theory of being.
• John Gray’s book: “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus
(1992) showcase a essentialist or a foundationalist ontological
position.
• Feminists argues that a male dominance is the reason why there is a
perpetuating gender inequality. This showcase a anti-foundationalist
ontological position.
 B. Epistemology
• A theory of knowledge.
• Two key questions are ask:
• Can an observer identify ‘real’ or ‘objective’ relations between social
phenomena? If so, how?
• The answers one gives to these questions shapes one’s epistemological
position.
• Two types of epistemological position:
• Scientific
• hermeneutics
C. Summary
• Ontology is the nature of reality while epistemology is the
relationship between the researcher and the reality or how this
reality is captured or known.

• Ontology is concerned with identifying the overall nature of existence

of a particular phenomena while epistemology is about how we go
about uncovering this knowledge and learn about reality.
II. Scientific vs Hermeneutic Approaches
• This approaches were greatly influence by empiricist tradition.
• David Hume argues that knowledge starts from our senses.
• The aim was to develop causal statements which specified that, under
a given set of conditions, there would be regular or predictive
outcomes.

• The adherents of the scientific tradition saw social science as

analogues to science (in general).
• In contrast there is an alternative hermeneutic or interpretist
tradition which the adherents of this position are anti-
foundationalists.
III. Different Approaches to Ontology and
Epistemology
A. Positivism
I. Definition
• Positivism is a philosophical system deeply rooted in science and
mathematics.
• They believe in objective truth. They also tend to deny the influence
of things like theoretical and cultural biases that get in the way of
science.
• Positivism divides all statements into three categories: true, false, and
meaningless (neither true nor false).
• Note: Despite its name, Positivism has nothing to do with “positive
thinking” or optimism – It’s just a coincidence that they have similar
names.
 II. Positivism vs. Postpositivism
• Positivism hit peak popularity in the early 20th century, but after that a new
school – the postpositivists – started to notice problems with the theory.
• Positivism is self-defeating. here’s a schematic of the postpositivist
argument:
• A. positivism claims what is true can be verified by science and logical proof.
• B. Positivism also claims everything else is either false or meaningless.
The argument:
• 1. claim “a” cannot be verified by science or logical proof.
• 2. therefore claim “a” is either false or meaningless.
• In other words, if positivism is true, then positivism is false! There is no
objective basis for believing in objective truth!
• The postpositivists, however, still held on to many aspects of the older
school.
III. Quotes about Positivism
• “From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all
directions, and though all times, the discovery arises of a great
fundamental law, [which is that] each branch of our knowledge
passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the
theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the
scientific, or positive.” (Auguste Comte)

• “Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must

necessarily be infinite.” (Karl Popper)
IV. Positivism in Pop Culture

James Cameron: AVATAR (2010) SOUTH PARK

• Put photo!!!!! • Put photo!!!!!
V. Controversies
• The Existence of God: True, False, or Meaningless?
• Positivists argue that the existence of God is neither true or false – it’s
meaningless.
• Historically, most positivists (and many postivists) have been atheists.
• So, there are three possible positions for a positivists:
• 1. God exists, and this can be shown through science (an unusual position!).
• 2. God does not exist because science cannot show the existence of a god.
• 3. The word “God” has no meaning.
VI. Summary
• The positivist ontology believes that the world is external and that
there is a single objective reality to any research phenomena or
situations regardless of the researcher’s perspective or belief.
• It is important in positivist research to seek objectivity and use
consistently rational and logical approaches to research.
• Statistical and mathematical techniques are central to positivist
research, which adheres to specifically structured research
techniques to uncover single and objective reality.
• The goal of positivist researchers is to make time and context free
generalizations.
B. Interpretist
I. Definition
• In social science, anti-positivist (also inetrpretivism and negativism) is
a theoretical stance, which propose that the social realm cannot be
studied with the scientific method of investigation applied to Nature,
and that investigation of the social realm requires a different
epistemology.
• researchers reject the notion that the world exist independently of
our knowledge of it. Rather, they contend that the world is socially or
discursively constructed.
• It argues that there is no objective truth, that the world is socially
constructed and that the role of social scientists’ is to study those
social construction utilizing qualitative methods.
II. Interpretists vs Positivists
• Interpretivism (anti positivism) developed among researchers
dissatisfied with post-positivism, the theories of which they
considered too general and ill-suited to reflect the nuance and
variability found in human interaction.
• Rather than seeking an objective perspective, interpretivists look for
meaning in the subjective experiences of individuals engaging in
social interaction.
III. Controversies
• To positivists, the interpretist tradition merely offers opinions or
subjective judgements about the world.
• Most researchers do believe that it is possible to generalize, if only in
a limited sense.
• Bevir and Rhodes attempt to defend their approach against this
positivist critique by establishing a basis on which they can make
knowledge claims.
• They suggest that a field study ‘is a co-operate intellectual practice,
with a tradition of historically produced norms, rules, conventions
and standards of excellence that remain subject to critical debate,
and with a narrative content that gives meaning to it’.
 IV. Summary
• The position of interpretivism in relation to ontology and epistemology is
that interpretivists believe the reality is multiple and relative.
• The knowledge acquired in this discipline is socially constructed rather
than objectively determined and perceived.
• Interpretivists avoid rigid structures frameworks such as in positivist
research and adopt a more personal and flexible research structures which
are receptive to capturing meanings in human interaction and make sense
of what is perceived as reality.
• The goal of interpretivist research is to understand and interpret the
meanings in human behavior rather than to generalize and predict causes
and effects.
Show the chart of the difference in positivism
and interpretivism in the research material 2
in MS WORD
C. Realism
I. Definition
• To realists, the world exists independently of our knowledge of it.
• Realists contend that social phenomena/structures do have causal
powers, so we can make causal statements.
• To a realist there is often a dichotomy between reality and
appearance.
• Realism has dominated the academic study of international relations
since the end of World War II.
• Realism is often associated with Realpolitik as both are based on the
management of the pursuit, possession, and application of power.
I. Definition
• Jonathan Haslam characterizes realism as “spectrum if ideas.”
Regardless of which definition is used, the theories of realism revolve
around four central propositions:
• 1. the states are the central actors in international politics rather than
individuals or international organization.
• 2. that the international political system is anarchic as there is no
supranational authority that can enforce rules over the states.
• 3. that the actors in the international political system are rational as their
actions maximize their own self-interest.
• 4. that all states desire power so that they can ensure their own self-
preservation.
II. Types of Realism
A. Classical Realism
B. Neorealism
A. Classical Realism
• Classical realism states it is fundamentally the nature of humans that
pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over
ideologies.
• Criticisms of classical realism were of two sort, which reflect different
epistemological positions.
• They key problem here of course is that it is not easy, indeed many
would see it as impossible, to combine scientific and interpretivist
positions because they have such fundamentally different ontological
and epistemological underpinnings, one focus on explanation and the
other on understanding.
B. Neorealism
• Neorealism was an attempt to translate some of the key insights of
classical realism into the language and methods of modern social
science.
• Neorealism differed from classical realism in two important respects:
methodology and level of analysis.
• Neorealism has had numerous detractors, including many who were
sympathetic to classical realism.
IV. Ontological and Epistemology in Political
Science: Two Cases
• Case 1: Globalisation

• Case 2: Multilevel Governance

A. Case 1: Globalisation
• The literature on globalization mushroomed in the 1990s. It has been
common to distinguish between processes or aspects of globalization:
so many authors have distinguished between economic, political, and
cultural process, while acknowledging that they are interrelated.
• Political scientists have probably been most concerned with economic
globalization and way in which it restricts the autonomy of the state,
and have utilized a foundatioanlist ontology and a positivist
epistemology, although some more recent work on cultural studies,
concentrate upon cultural globalization, operating from an anti-
foundationalist and interpretist position.
A. Case 1: Globalisation
• Ohmae (1990- Hyperglobalist) argue that there has been massive
increase in various indicators of economic globalization: direct foreign
investment; international bank lending; transnational production;
international trade; and so on.
• In contrast, author such as Hirst and Thompson (1999 – Sceptics)
argue that the process is limited; suggesting that globalization is not a
new phenomena; regionalization, rather than globalization, is better
description of the changes that have occurred; and the only area in
which there has been significant globalization is in relation to financial
markets.
A. Case 1: Globalization
• Globalization is an economic process that can be measured
quantitatively, indeed there is large agreement as to the appropriate
measures, and, which, to the extent that it exists, has an effect on
patterns of governance.
• Held et al. (1999) contrast to Hyperglobalist and Sceptical approaches
to globalization with a third approach to which they adhere: the
Transformationist thesis.
A. Case 1: Globalization
• Held et al. also emphasize the major way in which the
transformationist account parts company worth company both the
other two positions:
“The transformationalists make no claims about the future trajectory of
globalization … Rather [they] emphasize globalization as a long-term historical
process which is inscribed with contradictions and which is significantly shaped
by conjunctural factors.”
• It seems clear then that the transformative position is realist one.
• There are other approaches to globalization which are clearly located
in an interpretist tradition.
B. Case 2: Multilevel Governance
• Multilevel Governance (MLG) is rapidly acquiring the status of a
fashionable mainstream concept, it is not as established as
‘globalization’ in the vocabulary of politicians and commentators. A
useful definition of MLG is provided by Hunt (1999): ‘[According to
multilevel governance theories] the policy process involves the
interaction between a constellation of public and private actors
located at a supranational, national, and sub-national level.’
B. Case 2: Multilevel Governance
• Intergovernmentalism is a perspective closely related to international
lawyers, but an influential political analysis is provided by Andrew
Moravscik (1993), who argues that the European policy process can
be understand as a nested game played out both in the domestic
politics of member states and in the international arena of the EU’
institutions.
B. Case 2: Multilevel Governance
• MLG theorists derive its frameworks from institutionalist
perspectives, arguing that ‘institutions matter’ in shaping interaction,
analyst such as Moravscik generally utilize rational choice perspective.
• Most MLG theorists are realists in epistemological terms, and
sometimes of ‘deep, non-observable structures’ can, and does,
determine the outcomes of decision-making in the long term.
• As such, their logic is inductive rather than deductive.
B. Case 2: Multilevel Governance
• In contrast, liberal intergovernmentalists seek to identify the
preferences and the parameters of the individual actors (usually the
member state) and show how outcomes can be understood as the
result of rational calculated behavior.
• Their logic is therefore deductive: they argue from the general to the
particular.
• Liberal intergovernmentalism is foundationalist in ontological terms
and operates with a positivist epistemology.
B. Case 2: Multilevel Governance
• In comparison with state-centred accounts, multilevel is said to be
‘closer to the people’ and therefore more acceptance, and more
flexible and adaptable, so better able to respond to the rapidly
changing economic climate.
• The arguments against multilevel governance, if it is regarded as a
policy prescription as well as empirical analysis, concentrate on two
main issues.
• First is the joint decision trap.
• Second is the opacity of decision-making and, mean obsure elite-led
agreements and public incomprehension.
B. Case 2: Multilevel Governance
• Mark et al. (1996) have three main criticisms of the
intergovernmental approach:
• First, positivist explanation of social phenomena neglect the structural
constraints within which individuals operate.
• Second, realist perspective emphasizes how the institutional framework have
a primary effect in shaping decision-making through their formal rules, their
informal procedures, their value structures and their effects on office-holding
and internal role-oriented behavior.
• Third, its is argued that intergovernmentalists are insufficiently critical about
what time-frames are relevant and why.
 B. Case 2: Multilevel Governance
• Additionally, constructivists argue that, if there is a problem of increasing
complexity of decision-making associated with the decline of the nation
state, this complexity must be understood as an international social
contract on the part of decision-makers, part of aa set of political projects
associated with responses to perceptions of external and internal
constraints.
• Constructivists take issues with the positivist understanding of the nature
of political choice. They argue against the acceptance of individual
preference as a given and instead interrogate specifically why and how
preferences come to be formed and how these preferences and choices
relate to the strategic aim of powerful interests in society.
V. Conclusion
• The point here is not to attempt to resolve disputes. Rather, what we
have sought to do is to show how the different approaches in
different issues relate to epistemological and methodological
assumptions, and to one another.
• The least one can say about these issues is that they are of sufficient
importance to warrant a genuine commitment to coming to terms
with them.
• This means identifying what are the epistemological and ontological
underpinnings and what these imply in terms of argumentation,
practical research method, and explanatory logic and research
construction.