Epistemology Review

Next month we have comprehensive exams. We will be asked to write essays over the course of two days - four hours each day - on epistemology, research methods, policy formulation and policy evaluation. This is a review of the breadth of epistemological approaches we will need to be prepared to apply.

By 2050, the minority population will be the majority in the US. We need leaders and researchers that can influence public policy that will be responsive to the new America. Seriously, we need more people of color in higher education.

Epistemology - How do we distinguish knowledge from belief or prejudice? What criteria do we use? How do we know what we know?

Ontology - What is the nature of things? How do we categorize things?

Moral assumptions - The minute we want to have an impact on society we are making moral assumptions.

Postivism:
This approach believes that science is a reliable and the most valuable source of knowledge. Knowledge is based on experiences or observations. There is a symmetry of explanation and prediction. That is, if you have explained a phenomenon, you can predict future occurances.
If something exists, then it can be measured. Reality is objective and independent of our perceptions.
Verifiability theory of meaning posits that we start with a theoretical statement that can be observed and is logical in structure, which we can then go out and test whether it is correct.

Post-Positivism:
This approach recognizes that doing science is a social process. Research and knowledge are contextual. Theoretical constructs can guide you and lead you to ask a set of questions you might not have otherwise. Although there are mental processes at work, we don't need to explore or explain intentionality. Knowledge is conjectural - always up for reconsideration and based on the best evidence at the time. Can't ever get at the "truth," only what is "warranted" - that is, knowledge that is accepted by the strongest available evidence at the time. It may change as new information arises. Knowledge is obtained through disproving theories.

Interpretivism:
Over time we develop a consensus about what things are (intersubjectivity). There are subjective entities, such as mental states, that have a causal function on behavior. Language constructs phenomena and conveys reality. Social reality is created, but once it is created it becomes objectified and has real consequences. Many social facts are real only because they are believed to be real. In many cases, social science phenomena don't exist unless people believe they do. Social facts are different than natural facts because they include intentionality, therefore any social explanation must include the intentionality of the social actors and understanding of their language. The focus of this approach is on understanding.

Hermeneutics:
The science of interpretation of texts and understanding. You can't separate objective and subjective - both are important. Acknowledge that the same text can be viewed differently across time. There is an awareness of own prejudice and how it affects interpretation of the text. "Fusion of horizons" through dialogue with the text. Hermeneutics treats social science differently than natural science and values context with a willingness to test assumptions through dialogue. Does not provide explanations of phenomena.

Social Constructivism:
This approach sees things in a state of flux and very contextualized. Knowledge is socially constructed - it is something people do together. It reflects the interests of some groups more than others. Ideas about knowledge are created through interactions. These interactions are not constant from one social setting to anothe r. This approach does not deny physical aspects to many phenomena, but are interested in what those physical acts come to mean. Self is evolving and you are an active agent in its development.

Pragmatism:
This approach is not really interested in causal relationships. Knowledge is a process, cannot be isolated from its context and used to solve problems. Research strategies used include mixed methods - whatever works.

Critical Realism:
If something is illogical (i.e. leads to social outcomes that are agreed to be negative by general consensus), you "ought" to work to alleviate them. The social reality of doing science is transitive, but that doesn't change what is there. People are agents with influence to shape social realities. Knowledge is obtained by studying underlying mechanisms that cause tendencies. Research methods include trying to discover false beliefs, moral obligation to expose false beliefs. Acknowledges subjects may be wrong and not able to see outside of false consciousness.

Critical Theory:
Knowledge is gained by revealing false consciousness caused by oppressive circumstances, presenting evidence of false consciousness and then having the oppressed verify that the researchers are correct. Begins with Post-positivist/empiricist methods to prove oppressive circumstances. Then use hermeneutic process, if the oppressed do not agree, to attempt to show that they would agree in an ideal speech situation (a rational, democratic society where everybody has equal access to democratic debate, relevant information and everybody is heard). The assumption is that there are underlying patterns of oppression and that those patterns are rationalized through ideologies that then become internalized. The aim is emancipation of subjects from oppressive false consciousness - and enlightenment from self-imposed coercion.

Feminist Standpoint:
Starts with assumption that part of situated knowledge is that it is a function of oppression/oppressed condition. Women, minorities or other oppressed groups have distinct ways of knowing and experiencing the world, which gives them epistemic privilege. Oppression has resulted in only certain knowledge being validated (the one created by white males and tested on white males). Traditional research has embodied biases. By introducing female bias, perhaps some balance will result. Purpose is not just elimination of biases but liberation. The goal is liberation of oppressed populations and self-reflection is part of the process. Brings in perspectives that an engendered society tends to be blind to and transcends the political nature of research. Exposes sexism, racism and bias.

Postmodernism
This approach argues that the idea that we have progressed runs counter to the circumstances under which people live day to day. It emphasizes difference, fragmentation, change, the irrational. The reality of events exists only within the meanings assigned by those perceiving the events. All knowledge claims are only debatable within their own context, paradigm or community. Everything is interactive, so there is no way to determine the time sequence needed for causality. There is nothing inherently truthful about "knowledge." Adoption of any narrative is an act of power and precludes looking at other narratives. Things are not "true" or "untrue" - they just represent the attributor's own values and experience. There are no adequate means for representing external reality. Reject traditional methods of evaluating knowledge - does not put much stock in "reason." Interpretation is introspective and anti-objectivist. Rather than working to distinguish which patterns are more correct or more common, this perspective encourages the acceptance of various conceptions of a phenomenon. Rather than dismissing the outliers, studies the exception. Celebrates creativity, imagination, introspection, breaking conventions. Postmodernism is mainly a critique and doesn't create new knowledge. It focuses on deconstructing existing knowledge. Challenges conventional measurement tools because reliance on a single measure that oversimplifies, reduces or reifies construction of phenomenon (for example, domestic violence) can interfere with our full understanding of these issues.

Evidence-Based Practice:
This is not an epistemology, it is a practice paradigm intended to close the gap between research and practice to maximize opportunities to help clients and avoid harm. It arose as an alternative to authority-based decision making based on consensus, tradition and anecdotal evidence. It employs methods like meta-analysis which looks at the cumulative body of knowledge on a subject, all the studies, then ranks them by rigor of methodologies used (with Randomized Control Trials or RCTs at the top), whether it is translatable into practice, then engages in a decision-making process. It was originally intended to reduce lag in adoption of new innovations in the field.