Hello,
During the 80s and 90s, I worked on addressing theory foundations of design research. I found it is much easier to define ontology and epistemology in specific contexts. General definitions are very hard to project to local analysis - particularly for words like ontology and epistemology that are used as a 'grab bag' into which to put anything that is convenient. Their main use is in discursive brevity rather than precision. ('Research' is a similar problematic 'grab bag' word as is 'knowledge' - in each case, clarity of analysis is gained by focusing on what they contain, e.g. 'gathering data', analysing data', 'making theory', 'memorising information', 'reading' etc).
There are of course serious problems with the definitions of ontology and epistemology in research contexts because their definitions depend on theoretical perspective. They are separate concepts in positivist/objectivist perspectives yet overlap to different extents in post-positivist theory perspectives - or any theory perspectives that include human influence on cognition. (This is a central theme of Guba's 'Paradigm Dialog', Sage).
Careful definition of ontology and epistemology from a specific use is easier and more precise - especially when the details of the specific use is epistemologically unpacked.
An approach that has worked for me for several years on defining ontology and epistemology in the context of research goes as follows. I've separated it into pieces for convenience:
1. Theory is the central focus. The primary productive aim of researchers is to produce new theory.
2. Theory is a special kind of representation of real world objects and their behaviour.
3. Researchers aim to produce a special kind of theory that is: usefully representative of real world objects and behaviours; communicable; unambiguous; usable across a variety of contexts; reliable; testable; coherent with other theories; and in a symbolic language whose rules of manipulation result in accurate predictions of real world objects and behaviours. A central interest of research theory is to represent _causal_ behaviours as this enables the main aspect of utility - prediction. The preliminary exploratory initial stages of theory building may, however, focus on the weaker relationships of correlation between behaviours. This is central to a hypothetical speculative phase of theory representation.
4. To fulfil the above criteria, the special forms of 'research theory' representation require formal technically-defined representational symbolic languages that have their own representative objects, and behavioural relations between those objects.
5. The picture thus far is of two parallel streams: 'real world objects and their behaviours'; and 'theory representation objects with their behaviours and relationships that are arranged to represent real world objects and behaviours'.
From the above position on theory, defining 'ontology' and 'epistemology' becomes fairly straightforward.
1. There is ontology of being of 'real world objects'. The core issue of ontology in this context is the units of being and their boundaries, i.e. what is an 'X'? For example, addressing questions such as 'What is an organisation?' (I.e. referring to the real world group of people and behaviours). In the physical word this is brought to a peak with the concerns of physicists at quantum and cosmic levels about real objects. In the mid-range, there are many ontological concerns of disciplines in the social studies and psychological areas that I suspect will prove irrelevant with increasing information and theory emerging from brain research. This is because many of the 'objects of concern' are abstracted in ways that facilitate making theory that is relatively second hand and remote. I suspect that this applies for example questions involving romantically defined emotions like 'What is the ontology of happiness? (where happiness is seen as a real world phenomenon)' Instead, I suspect we will see the development of new interests in the ontology of ethologically-defined behaviours. To recap, the focus in this aspect of ontology is on 'real world' objects in their unrepresented form.
2. In parallel is the ontology of being of 'theory representations'. The foci of this aspect of ontology are the theory objects used in representation and their behaviours and relationships. In the above question of 'What is an organisation?' the 'theory ontology' focus is on: the concept of organisation; its beng in representational symbolic language; the exisitnce in that symbolic language of particular behaviours and relationships that are of interest; and the exisitence of interconnections of this new theory representation with other more established and better justified theory objects. To recap, the focus of this aspect of ontology is on the being of the theory objects and their behaviours and relationships.
At this point, defining epistemology emerges effortlessly:
1. Epistemology is the study of the relationships between the 'real world' objects and their behaviours' and the research-based 'theory objects and their behaviours that are used as representations of real world objects and behaviours'.
2. Central concerns of epistemology and theory building in research contexts are: that symbolic theory representations can be manipulated according to rules in ways that will then result in correct prediction of future, as yet unknown, behaviours in the real world; and that these predictions correlate closely with the outcomes of independent empirical data gathered from a real world enactment of the predicted situation. The primary aim is to theoretically model causal behaviours.
3. Defined in symbolic terms, theory objects and their behaviours and relationships also become real world objects, behaviours and relationships so there is a natural recursion.
Following this 'theory-focused' path to defining ontology and epistemology helps clarify relationships and differences between research and design activities.
1. Researchers build theory representations of real world objects and their behaviours. Their central focus is creating theoretical presentations that enable prediction of behaviours - in the main through building theories that model real world causality in ways that can be manipulated according to the ontological characteristics of the symbolic representational languages that are used to emulate real world situations.
2. Designers create representations (designs). The two main foci of their choice of symbolic language are: as a means of unambiguously conveying the manufacturing specifications of the objects to be actualised; and as a means of communicating their thoughts about the form of the designed outcome and its intended behaviours. These are epistemologically different interests from those of researchers and usually require different forms of symbolic languages whose purposes and use-values are different from those used by researchers.
Designers that have also learned to undertake and understand research use both modes.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love
Love Design and Research
PO Box 226
Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
www.love.com.au
Curtin Research Fellow
Dept of Design
Curtin University
Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
Visiting Research Fellow
Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School
Lancaster University
Lancaster, UK
[log in to unmask]
____________________
|