The study of politics is a broad and complex subject of study.

The right method or approach to choose in this field is rather unclear. However whatever the theory or the social scientist, the orientation of the author in terms of epistemology and ontology truly shape their work 2. They shape their analysis and decide on what methods to use to back up their ideas on these epistemological and ontological bases. In this essay we will try and describe the importance of ontology and epistemology in the world of political science first by explaining what is ontology, what studying patterns come from ontology. We will then draw our attention on what epistemology is, what research methods it leads to and what theories result from it. We will finish by seeing how these concepts are often interlinked an considered in dissociable in political studies. We will begin our essay by describing what ontology is. Ontology basically means, the nature of being1. It attempts to understand the nature of the political world2. It tries to define whether there is a reality in the world and how it exists. On such a broad definition, we are entitled to wonder about the utility of such a theory. A we will see further down, ontology clearly defines entities in the world1. It can therefore set a good basis for an objective and constructive analysis of politics. It orientates towards the outcome of the study. As will be described, ontology also sets a blueprint for epistemological approaches to politics (Figure 9.1), therefore shape the entire political study of any researcher. Ontology being such an ancient theory it is only natural that several currents derive from it. Historically wise, two main theories emerge from ontology 1. The oldest one comes from Heraclius. For him realities were constantly changing, the world was emerging, in perpetual change. His ontology is known as one of becoming. The most well known one an the one most political scientists based their analysis upon is the Parmenides ontology. For him realities are permanent, he sets a being ontology. The world is constituted of clear entities. This approach was privileged because the becoming one had limitations in terms of research for concrete realities seeking. Two streams of study come form the being approach to ontology2. The first one considers reality is out there in the world and that humans must go look for it. This led to methodological approaches as objectivism, foundationalism and realism. The second one considers the world as being socially constructed. Approaches resulting form this are constructivism, anti-foundationalism etc. We will then continue by describing epistemology by the same pattern as ontology, with more attention drawn on the actual theories and methods of study deriving from it. Epistemology is literally, a theory of knowledge, of the seeking of the knowledge. It therefore shapes the study process of the social sciences as well as the result with the different methodologies of study deriving from it 1. It sets a philosophical background for what knowledge is right or not. It permits the objective relations between social phenomena.

David E.Gray, Doing Research in the real World (Chap 2) p.17 David Marsh and Paul Furlong, A Skin not a Sweater. (Chap 9) p.185

Two main approaches derive from epistemology; the scientific approach and the interpretive one3. From the scientific approach we will describe two main currents, positivism and realism, and we will describe on the other hand, the interpretive approach to the study of politics and how they oppose one another. (Refer to figure 9.1) The scientific approach in epistemology wants to set statements in political science in order to create predictable outcomes, effects of politics. The methods of study deriving from this approach see the truth as being out there in the world, and that researchers must go look for it. Positivism is one of the closest methods of study of the scientific epistemology. It is based on a foundationalist ontology and studies the concepts in the world and institutions separately, looking for no social link to these societal realities 4. They believe in the empirical, quantitative approach of study, almost scientifical (in that sense they resemble the behaviouralists). They lie on a being ontology, as they believe realities to be discovered will and cant be altered, as they exist independently from the researcher. Many theories and social scientists however oppose positivism completely. Some consider positivists as having misinterpreted the way science works: it starts form theory to then make observations and measurable proofs of these theories. The method of study of positivists of induction is therefore completely wrong. For example Popper considers that no theory can only be proved with observations as only one of them makes everything false5, and that is true for any scientific breakthrough we have experienced throughout history. Moreover, while positivists think they are objective in their approach to social sciences, Quine counter argues by saying that the science in itself isnt objective as it is the scientist, by his view of the world and personal experiences that make discoveries and research. The research of science isnt albeit objective in the first place6. Also, as interpretivists argue, no social science can really say that every social reality is independent from each other. Everything is intertwined according to them. The main theory opposing this positivist approach to the study of politics is therefore interpretivism. In the interpretivist approach to politics, although also based on a being ontology, considers that the world can be interpreted through the schemes of the mind, is socially constructed, that there are no objective truths in the world. They are interested in the meaning of the behaviour. They adopt a qualitative approach to studying politics. However there are downsides to this political approach. Many would argue that there are no basis to judge of the truth of the statements in this approach, as they are theory based they are difficult to be judged. Many social scientists would therefore prefer a less radical approach, of mixing scientifical approach with the interpretivist one. Finally, still under the scientifical approach of epistemology, we will talk about realism. Realism adopts the same ontological position as positivism although they have many common links with interpretivism7. In this theory we can observe a clear division between reality and appearance, in the sense that social phenomena exist even if we dont pose an interpretation over it. Our interpretation however matters in the outcome of the method of study. In that sense we can consider that realism is a moderated scientific epistemology. After having explained the main theories coming from epistemology we will now discuss the difficulties researchers face while having to choose an epistemological position.

3 4 5

David Marsh and Paul Furlong, A Skin not a Sweater. (Chap 9) p.191

idem

David E.Gray, Doing Research in the real World ( Chap 2) p.19 David Marsh and Paul Furlong, A Skin not a Sweater. (Chap 9) p.195 7 David E.Gray, Doing Research in the real World ( Chap 2) p.24

Many scientists are tempted, in to trying to answer their questions and come up with theories, to mix epistemologies to find the most correct answer. But there are real technical issues for that. This mixture has to be well dosed and its only agreeable if based on similar, complementary, comparable assumptions about what can legitimately constitute knowledge or evidence. Post modernists would also challenged the epistemological basis of social sciences. For them, the search for knowledge is clearly misguided8. The author cannot be objective if he seeks the knowledge. In order to do his research right he most focus on the process, and not the outcome, or his analysis will be biased. Postmodernists are critical of the analysis. They are based on a becoming ontology and they cannot accept an objective definite truth. Different epistemological views can therefore be problematic for the opposition of political theories, as their ontological and epistemological basis are different. We will explain here how these ontological and epistemological concept are mixed in political research, and why its necessary to do so even though it poses conflicting issues. First we will describe how ontological and epistemological theories are in dissociable. Many consider for instance ontology as being the basis of epistemology. Epistemology is considered by some as how human agents can make sense of the nature of being, of the ontology. Many social theorists have argued about the relations between ontology and epistemology. For example Hay, argues clearly as shown in figure 9.1, that ontology precedes epistemology. Dix and Paul Jones on the other hand say that ontology is grounded in epistemology. That way the theory of being can be based on facts and knowledge, making it more rational. Spencer has a more balanced view of things. For him, ontology shouldnt be reduced as only prior to epistemology. If every concrete object in the world (being) is educed to the knowledge of it, the material world has no power and becomes further from reality. We will therefore say its difficult not to associate epistemology and ontology but one shouldnt be overlooked over the other in any case. They constitute the basis of political analysis, the skin of social sciences as expressed by Furlong and Marsh (all references 9. Difficulties can be found however in the combining of ontology and epistemology. For example ontological differences cant lead to clear, defined and unified epistemological positions and methods of study. If we divide ontology between the being view of Parmenides and the becoming of Heraclitus, the epistemological positions coming from that are varied. The being ontology leads to objectivism, and interpretivism while the becoming one promotes more subjectivism and post modernism. However we have seen before that these theories, although having maybe a similar ontological basis, are completely different on the epistemological viewpoint, as we have seen earlier on. As a concrete example we can take the case of feminism. Even if they fall under a being ontological approach, their epistemological basis of knowledge is so radically different as other theories (e.g. positivism) that it makes it difficult to counter argue with one another: for feminists, epistemology, the knowledge of a person is determined by their social positions; as women are dominated by men, they have an a real social experience, and are therefore as being weaker and subject to men domination, they are more objective in their discourse. For them, even empirical research is biased because done by the dominant members of society, which have a biased vision of the world, while women, by their personal experiences can depict a more realistic portrait of society. Having radically opposed epistemologies like that makes it therefore really difficult to argue against is one of the downsides of this mixing in classifying epistemology and ontology.10
8

David E.Gray, Doing Research in the real World ( Chap 2) p.26 David Marsh and Paul Furlong, A Skin not a Sweater. (Chap 9) p.189-191 10 David Marsh and Paul Furlong, A Skin not a Sweater. (Chap 9) p.

Finally we can conclude by saying that both ontology and epistemology individually and together are absolutely vital for the study of politics as they set a basis for the researcher, what methods he wants to use, how and what he bases his knowledge on. However we must keep in mind that this basis isnt a permanent one and that depending on the issue analysed, the mixing of method and concepts is perfectly acceptable and remaining attached to only one would be stubborn and unproductive. Social sciences and politics especially is a constantly changing subject, always intertwining theories between each other. Therefore even if these theories are and have been of crucial importance in the study of politics we must bear in mind that these are not enough. Sticking to political theory is clearly not enough for a complete understanding of our modern world.

Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (Eds.), Theory and Methods in Politics Science (Ch. 9) p. David E.Gray, Doing Research in the real World ( Chap 2) p. David Marsh and Paul Furlong, A Skin not a Sweater. (Chap 9) p.