Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Discussion
Started 3 October 2021
How Ontology, Epistemology And Axiology Relate To Develop New Knowledge Through Research Methodology And Research Design ?
Dear All,
I have created a mind map of a literature review on How Ontology, Epistemology And Axiology Relate To Develop New Knowledge Through Research Methodology And Research Design.
The summary is at :
I want critical comments on my thoughts.
The outline of the finding is as follows and you can follow the above link for a more clear image.
Thank you
Please refer following links of ideas and make critics;
· I found that any research needs to add new knowledge
· That knowledge is resulted from answering a question/s or/and finding a solution/s
· Each problem or solution has its ontology, epistemology, and axiology
· The ontology, epistemology and axiology collectively form a research philosophy while those influence developing research questions or hypotheses or a mix of both regarding the problem or solution.
· As the research philosophy and questions/hypothesis origin from the same sources to both should be conceptually related to each other.
· Then research design is formulated to answer those research questions or hypotheses or a mix of both
· same time the research methodology is underpinning the particular research’s ontology, epistemology, axiology and philosophy continues
· Then research design and research methodology both make the selection of approach in theory development. As well, research design and research methodology make and formulate the rest of the steps in the research.
· After that, the steps are clear. However, the selections of methodological choices, strategies, data collection techniques and analysis techniques are interrelated decisions.
· Finally, all these activities resulted in new knowledge

Most recent answer
you are a true Genius ....................
REZA
1 Recommendation
Popular replies (1)
Getúlio Vargas Foundation
They are interrelated somehow.
26 Recommendations
All replies (49)
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Murillo De Oliveira Dias thank you.
Just review and make a critic if you see something wrong.
1 Recommendation
W3-Research
This is a very interesting research design typology Mr. Pradeep. I would be interested to follow this further.
Based on my experience here in ResearchGate (http://kennethstrang.com) I believe sometimes the "research question" will be first, which will then be followed by an acknowledgement of the ideology, etc. (or possible development - as per your model). What I mean is your process #3 would actually be #1, followed by #2 (which would change 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 to 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) and then lead to either:
a. hypothesis (if quantitative, deductive)
b. proposition (or question) if qualitative or inductive.
I can recommend some information from my publications to help you and other scholars see my ideology, per below. Please let me know if this helps and if you have constructive feedback?
Strang, K. D. (2015). Handbook of Research Design in Business and Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-1137379924 doi:10.1057/9781137484956. Available https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137379924 Retrieved from http://kennethstrang.com/ABIS/ResearchDesignHandbook[ISBN9781137484956]-Strang@Palgrave(2015).pdf
Strang, K. D., Korstanje, M. E., & Vajjhala, N. R. (2018). Research, Practices, and Innovations in Global Risk and Contingency Management (Vol. 1, pp. 418, ISBN: 978-1522547549, doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4754-9, http://www.igi-global.com/book/research-practices-innovations-global-risk/185476). PA: IGI-Global.
4 Recommendations
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Kenneth David Strang Thank you very much for the informative answer and valuable links to the resources. I accept your idea with honour.
I feel the term "research question" itself gives multiple meanings to novel researches. Then there, I found I reused the meaning of the same term twice in 1 and 3 in my diagram. I realised that the term "research question" instead of problem/solution (1) is best to start the entire research, even though we are going to solve a problem or find a solution. As well the by correcting the term "Questions" in 3 to "Proposition", the interchange of 1 and 3 will be solved.
Then, I doubt the "research philosophy (2)".
As per some textbooks, research philosophy is a selection of one of the options from Positivism, Critical Realism, Interpretivism, Postmodernism, Pragmatism, or etc. The Onto/Epis/Axiology are guided to select such one and Research Methodology is based on such options.
Sir, How can I solve and map here?
thank you again
1 Recommendation
Lappeenranta – Lahti University of Technology LUT
Dear Mr. Pradeep!
You spotted a relevant issue. I want to contribute to your work by the research found below:
1) N Suprapto (2021). Physics education students’ understanding of the concept of epistemology, ontology, and axiology, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1747 012015, Open access: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1747/1/012015/pdf
2) A case-study: Claire Palermo et al. (2021). Internal coherence matters: Lessons for nutrition and dietetics research, Journal of Dietitians Australia, Volume 78, Issue 3, July 2021, Open access:
3) Hubert Buch-Hansena, Iana Nesterova (2021). Towards a science of deep transformations: Initiating a dialogue between degrowth and critical realism, Ecological Economics, Volume 190, December 2021, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800921002470?dgcid=rss_sd_all
Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely
5 Recommendations
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Bulcsu Szekely Thank you very much for the resource. definitely, I will go through the content will extract the required things. Thanks again!
2 Recommendations
Portland State University
I would delete pragmatism from the list of "paradigms" that are related to ontology, epistemology etc. since pragmatists explicitly reject any reliance on these concepts. Further,, the concept of paradigms, as originally introduced by Kuhn, had absolutely nothing to do with the philosophy of knowledge as expressed in terms of ontology and epistemology.
I also have my doubts about the inclusion of axiology in this system, since Guba and Lincoln eventually tacked that on to their original system after others criticized their lack of attention to values etc. But their original system was based on the philosophy of knowledge, which does indeed exclude issues of ethics, which philosophy treats as an entirely separate issue.
Overall, I would consider this whole approach to be out of date. Guba and Lincoln introduced it more that 30 years ago, and since then mixed methods has called most of it into question. Inn particular, there has been a shift in thinking so that the crucial linkage is between the research question and the means of answering. Do you have a meaningful question and an appropriate means for answering it? If so, that is what really matters, and you can ignore issues about the nature of reality (ontology) and possibility of (truth) -- which have little do with accomplishing good research,
If you actually read Kuhn and take his concept of paradigm seriously, then the approach to research methodology in terms of ontology, epistemology, etc. was a very successful paradigm, in its day. That day, is now however, past.
6 Recommendations
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Dear Sirs, Thank you very much for the descriptive and focused resources and asnweres. Your directions and comments tangent the discussion really interesting area.
Through Kenneth David Strang resources, the nice illustration in (Figure 1.2 Research design typology full model attached with here) page 8 of Strang, K. D. (2015). Handbook of Research Design in Business and Management provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Further, David L Morgan developed an argument on how the mixed researches of pragmatists need to be shaped and located. As well his latest publication of the mixed method (10.1007/s11135-020-01025-2) gave more insight on "research design" in my mind-map
I strongly suggest me colleges to read Kenneth David Strang and David L Morgan
"Practical Strategies for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods” (Morgan 1998) is one of the beauties who had never sleep for the last 23 years.
The resources of Bulcsu Szekely really exemplify the implementation of the above logic. Specially when I went through the three articles he supplied, I found that (1) how the epistemology (or maybe ontology or axiology) concepts are understood by the youngers and then just imagine what they believe on when they develop their researches
(2) how the researchers are done their works in different new ways going against the onto-epis-Axio trusts - (may I say radical ?) and
(3) how the alternative research concepts and philosophies (such as critical realism) need to investigate very new concepts (such as Degrowth scholarship), are not in line with onto-epis-Axio trusts.
So altogether what should I think?
But, it does not express it publicly. But I request you all to comment on that

1 Recommendation
Independent Environment & Development Facilitator
From a lay perspective (i.e. non-academic) and to better do justice to your specific questions it would be helpful to have a clearer idea of the context for this work. Is it intended to throw light on and inform focused enquiries into the natural or applied sciences (e.g. where cause & effect are typically assumed to apply), or to address the challenges associated with broader development issues, which might too include the relevance and application of the former to the latter?
There will always be a need for answers to the former, natural or applied science challenges (e.g. improved understanding of disease vectors; development of technologies etc). Such enquiries mostly correspond with what Snowden has defined as the ‘complicated context’ in his ‘Cynefin’ decision-making framework[1], and do not necessarily include the application of this new ‘scientific’ knowledge to real-world situations, which are typically characterised by ‘complexity’. This limitation gave rise to the develop of innovation systems thinking[2], which identified that the challenge of technology transfer (i.e. turning new knowledge into a marketable process, product, or service) lay with interactions between the constellation of actors and factors in the given system. Innovation system thinking, which originated in mainline economic settings was subsequently adopted and applied in the international development sector (i.e. initiated the broadening of the enquiry).
If your work is focussed on the narrower natural or applied science challenges, it may yet be useful to demonstrate awareness of the boundaries or limitations of this approach, and of the reservations expressed in the amassing literature by those who emphasise the challenge of addressing – navigating – the encompassing socio-ecological systems, over and above conventional research[3]? This might include the influences and constraints research processes face, both externally from donors and governments, and internally from predisposed mindsets, egos and self-esteem etc, together with the criticisms of being overly reductionist, overly quantitative, and mechanistic.
My preference, beyond that of generating ‘new knowledge’, would be the wider challenge of exploring the changes required of research to bring about better outcomes (i.e. changes in the real world). Robert Chambers offers a fascinating insight into the differences between the conventional scientific approach, or Newtonian paradigm (i.e. addressing physical things that are ‘..controllable, measurable, predictable, and with a linear logic to equilibrium), and the Complexity paradigm which focusses on ‘people and processes that are uncontrollable, harder to measure, unpredictable, and with a non-linear logic towards emergence’; and I would highly recommend you read his book[4].
From my own experience[5] examples of the scientific approach would include the farming systems approach in which scientists/experts select the research problem/s (e.g. crop pests, livestock diseases), identify key research questions or hypotheses, and precede to generate answers aligned with and addressing the identified research problem/s. Whilst this has certainly generated some excellent new knowledge (e.g. on army work, grain borers, locust etc), the applicability of such knowledge is often confined to a limited group of farmers – those who had a sufficient and good mix of livelihood assets and capabilities. The predominantly poorer farmers, who failed to adopt the new knowledge or technology because they lacked the necessary assets and abilities, were conveniently labelled ‘laggards’ – rather than concede the limited applicability of the research! Five years or a decade later a majority in the farming communities that hosted the research was still impoverished ... which is why I’d recommend focussing on research into action.
Hope this is of relevance to you.
Ø ‘Research needs to add new knowledge’ – but perhaps, as above, more besides? Moreover, there are many knowledges, so whose knowledge, what sort of knowledge? Local knowledge (ITK) is typically more flexible, relevant and applicable to local situations. Learning moreover is fundamentally a social concept, and collective understanding (i.e. as required for the social application of new knowledge) is only manifest through collective action and performance, as opposed to what individuals know in their heads or what is written down[6].
Ø ‘Knowledge results from answering a question/s etc’ – Firestein argues that ‘ignorance’ plays a key role in driving science, likening science to the search for a ‘black cat in a dark room, and there may not be a cat in the room’! Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin was accidental: returning from a two week holiday he discovered a ‘mold’ – penicillin – had contaminated a staphylococcus culture, and noticed that it was preventing the growth of staphylococci![7]
Ø ‘Each problem or solution has its ontology, epistemology, and axiology’ – the research approach, not the ‘problem’, surely?
Ø ‘The ontology, epistemology and axiology collectively form a research philosophy … (which) influence developing research questions or hypotheses…’ – check out Chambers’ diagrams for paradigms (pp 92-95), which introduce mindsets, predispositions etc into the mix.
Ø ‘Research design is formulated to answer research questions or hypotheses’ – conventional research designs yes, but who poses the research questions and designs the research? See Cartoon
[1] A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making (hbr.org), Snowden and Boone, 2007 – see also Snowden, 1999
[2] For references to ‘innovation systems’, see: Innovation Systems - what are they? (http://projects.nri.org/phila/index.html)
[3]See for example: Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2003, Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, Cambridge; Green, 2016, How Change Happens, Practical Action; Checkland and Poulter, 2006, Learning for Action, Wiley
[4] Robert Chambers, 2017, Can we know better: Reflections for Development, Practical Action. Can We Know Better? Reflections for Development (ids.ac.uk)
[5] (PDF) DFID CPHP Final Report R8265: Improving household food security by widening the access of small-holder farmers to appropriate grain store pest management (researchgate.net)
[6] See page 8 here (2) (PDF) Facilitating local strengthening of WASH systems: Whose understanding counts?: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332469193_Facilitating_local_strengthening_of_WASH_systems_Whose_understanding_counts
[7] Stuart Firestein, 2012, Ignorance: How it Drives Science, Oxford


4 Recommendations
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Kishore Kulothungan Thank you
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Very Dear Mr Pradeep
With all due respect ;
As an Educationalist with less than 3 decades of experience under my belt , two major flaws that I can see hidden in your dissertation regarding How Ontology, Epistemology And Axiology Relate To Develop New Knowledge , are as follow :
First—You think the main epistemological route ( to be reflected in axiological ontology ) for purposes of arriving at new knowledge , comprises of a series of attempts to solve Problematics . This , in my view , is too narrow-minded , in the sense that it still reflects Cartesian methodology of Problem_Solving even after the passage of centuries from Descartes’ death . You had much better bear in mind that the transcendental problem of consciousness/experience doesn't imply any transcendental ego preceding it as the Dualistic systematics force you to believe.
The major knowledge developments within the realm of the history of man, from the theoretical as much as from the practical point of view , is that of the construction of problems themselves , rather than making systematic attempts to escape away from them towards procreation of new knowledge . True knowledge is in the ability to select to create problems. And this semi-divine ability encompasses both the elimination of false issues and the creative upsurge toward genuine ones. Pre-dominating the image of thought as ideas bears important consequences both for pedagogical theory and for Praxis .
My way of thinking towards dialectical Ideas (rather than dualistic issues) takes a number of characteristics from Plato, Kant, and classical mathematics, as the foundation of axiological ontology. These characteristics have [ to some extent / but in no way FULLY ] been united by the mathematician and philosopher Albert Lautman's notion of Ideas/Problems. Lautman sought to explain the nature of the issues or dialectical ideas that mathematics participates in, as well as the solutions or mathematical theories that attempt to comprehend them.
Second—The axiology of new knowledge is one of those “false” ideas mentioned above . I want to make it clear to you that knowledge is no more valuable than true belief or empirically adequate belief, and thence is not the primary epistemic good. Consider an argument based on a supposed link between knowledge and appropriate behavior : It could next be shown that arguments connecting knowledge to right conduct are insufficient to explain this common view of knowledge's worth. In addition, You can evaluate an argument that uses the value of truth to justify the superiority of knowledge. This leads to the conclusion that truth is less valuable than often assumed, resulting in an overvaluation of knowledge.
Most Respectfully :
Prof REZA SANAYE
2 Recommendations
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
The three terms Ontology, Epistemology And Axiology
Ontology—The study of the state of being and logic of reasoning
Axiology—The study of what one ought to do or what is right
Epistemology -The study of knowledge and scope of knowledge
The main components of any research study are the research problem, research questions, and main research objectives derived from research questions, as well as the research's main goal and most importantly the research novelty. Furthermore, the research hypothesis is an expectation or prediction made by the researcher about the research that is later tested throughout the research process.
As stated above by, R M M Pradeep Sir for research studies, new knowledge should be contributed, and that knowledge comes from answering questions or solving issues, such as the study of one's state of being and logic of reasoning, the study of what one ought to do or what is proper, and the study of knowledge and scope of knowledge.
In my perspective, the principles of ontology, epistemology, and axiology, when taken together, it creates a research philosophy that contributes to the creation of research questions, hypothesis, or a combination of both solving the issues or finding solutions and the rest of the steps in the research are then made and formed by research design and research technique.
1 Recommendation
University of Basrah
Dear Sir,
You kindly stated that mixed methods research has put the philosophical foundations of research (i.e. ontology & epistemology) under question. I can say that I may still argue that I believe in both an objective and subjective reality - thus believing in both objectivist and constructivist ontologies! In other words, I can argue I look upon reality as being both single and multiple! I can also argue that I look at my findings (i.e. knowledge) as being true and fact - thus holding a positivist stance (and can thus generalize them), and also consider my findings as just being the result of my (and my participants) interpretation of the data - thus holding an interpretivist epistemology (in which case can not generalize the findings beyond their specific context). Therefore, I will keep the argument regarding the philosophy underlying educational research - i.e. keep the discussion of ontology and epistemology- despite the fact that that I am using mixed methods research. By doing so, I am building on previous body of research that have lasted for more than three decades!
2 Recommendations
Portland State University
You will have a hard time convincing most researchers that you can believe in two totally contradictory ontologies. This is a topic on which there is wide spread consensus that the two sets of assumptions are indeed "incommensurable," both in the philosophy of knowledge and its social science followers. This division has existed for over a thousand years, so simply claiming that you can overcome it will require quite a bit of detailed proof.
2 Recommendations
University of Basrah
Thank you so much for your reply Professor David L Morgan I am grateful to you.
1 Recommendation
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Thank you very much for giving and clearing the ideas.
Still, I am studying the criticism of Reza Sanaye , however, I ought to highlight my thinking in your points.
When research is in very closely related disciplines, I feel the ontologies( theory of being) and epistemologies (theory of knowledge) of such are agreeing on each other. However the personal experience & trust, are constructing the axiology of the research, but the discipline-oriented ontology & epistemology are definitely influencing such thinkings.
Then ontology and epistemology provide a general trust of the discipline (or specific branch of discipline) while axiology (is the research is a part of the researcher or not) provides how the researcher thinks on the reality; to the research construction.
As well Onto-Epis-Axio altogether constructs/develop a belief in what the truth should be, and the research idea (maybe problem or solution or suggestion or question) is evaluated against it.
I think no one can argue somebody's research idea. In line with such, I think, very dominant or obedient research ideas, or radical or crazy ideas, are generated from somebodies mind, supporting or challenging such Onto-Epis-Axio beliefs.
However, when the research is in different disciplines, ontologies and epistemologies are different and maybe contradicting each other to some extend. Then, axiology plays a great role there as the researcher's involvement construct the research idea. Again such an idea may be the same as before stated: "obedient" or "radical".
Then such status is independent of the theory-building approaches (inductive, deductive, abductive), research philosophies ( Positivism, Critical Realism, Interpretivism, Postmodernism, Pragmatism, or etc) and research paradigms (Subjective to objective vs radical change to regulation).
But the way the researcher needs to progress with the research idea can be described under the above theory building approach, philosophies etc.
David L Morgan and Asaad Chasib Hamood what do you think about this idea?
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Thank you very much for nicely criticising and proving the resources to go through for more exploring.
As you ask, the mind-map I made to get an outline idea of how the concepts are positioning and relating each other than focusing on a specific science.
I rather think of KNOWLEDGE as a representative word for any kind of output from the research. As you suggested my research is also with the practical approach development which the world is requesting at any time than the philosophical parts consider in the documentation. But the theory of research is an important part of the research as it provided the legitimate processes certification to the solution we develop and become an acceptable solution. However as you have shown in the cartoon, we may be too technical with our own creativity which becomes unusable as you have nicely briefed.
I think, have made explanations on most of your questioning points from my answer above to Asaad Chasib Hamood and David L Morgan.
Nevertheless, I feel I need to more insight into the references you provide to more clearly defence or update my thinking
Thank you very much
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Chamodi de Alwis Thank you very much for your insight and develop an answer as a young researcher. I feel we can learn a lot from the above-experienced person critics. Be though with the discussion. As well the discussion at the following discussion gives lots of clear arguments. please go through.
University of Basrah
R M M Pradeep Thank you so much for your question.
You kindly stated that there is an agreement between ontology & epistemology when disciplines are closely related and there is a contradiction or difference between ontology & epistemology when the disciplines are different! I do not seem to quite understand what do you mean by that! I look upon ontology as the research question and epistemology as the research findings! How can then be an agreement or disagreement between them when the disciplines are similar or dissimilar? What are the similar disciplines? And what are the different disciplines? Can you please supply examples?
And when you talked about axiology, were you speaking about it in terms of value?
And you stated that
"Then such status is independent of the theory-building approaches (inductive, deductive, abductive), research philosophies ( Positivism, Critical Realism, Interpretivism, Postmodernism, Pragmatism, or etc) and research paradigms (Subjective to objective vs radical change to regulation)."
I disagree with you on that! The relation (or interaction) between ontology & epistemology and axiology is NOT independent of...
Please correct me if I misunderstood or misrepresent you.
2 Recommendations
Oxford Brookes University
David L Morgan inevitably hits the nail on the head with his statement, "Do you have a meaningful question and an appropriate means for answering it?"
I actually think using the perspectives of ontology and epistemology are a useful way of exploring that question. Handled with care. Handled with care because I also think that repeated publication of engineered systems of what is what, what goes where on what dimension, have proved rather sterile. Despite this modelling, people remain unclear about what terms relate to what philosophical question, they interchange, mix them up, compare apples with dragonflies and research students end up with statements like 'I believe everyone creates their own reality' which, if correct, would dispense with all research aimed at public knowledge creation. But ...
But to ask yourself, 'what kind of thing am I interested in researching?' and 'what would knowledge about that thing look like', seeem like a useful step towards answering the question, 'how do I best find out?' David Silverman (in his very nice, 2013 book) says something along the lines that if you research using interviews, you are researching interview data. Of course, people do that all the time, and it is generally accepted, but strictly speaking if your question is about a 'what people do in practice' sort of thing, then it seems that 'what people say in interviews' might only be unreliably linked to it.
Silverman, D. (2013), A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Qualitative Research, London:SAGE.
3 Recommendations
University of Basrah
I agree with you. However, the discussion about the philosophy of research is so useful as background knowledge for the researcher! It allows him/ her to think philosophically about research and explore more about the field/ or phenomenon under investigation! the question of "what people do in practice" can be answered through different means - such as interviews, observations and questionnaires!
2 Recommendations
École Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture Paris-Val de Seine
I don't know if anyone has already taken the stand to say what I'm about to express but based on my experience, before the problem (1), there is already an research first edification based on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that will give the bounderies and vista of the research that will influence the formulation / enonciation of the problem with an orientation that will states the research axiology. The axiology in correlation with the research "roots" imposes the ontology, the epistemology, the methodology and the corpus, the overall implying finally the research paradigm (new paradigm). It is not the problem that implies the philosophy of research, but the philosophy of research will give the angle under which the problem is formulated and be solved. A problem has an infinite angle of regards, it is the philosophy of research that makes the different typology of research.
2 Recommendations
University of Basrah
I also would to add that it would be difficult to dispense with discussions regarding the philosophical assumptions of the educational research. Such discussions are not only useful, they are interesting and add breadth to the study of educational research. I think that we need to find a mid-way solution to the problem we face with mixed methods research!
3 Recommendations
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Excuse me !
'how do I best find out?' is way too teleological ................... I should hardly believe science AND humanities have developed in that manner genealogically speaking ..............
Most Respectfully
REZA
2 Recommendations
University of Basrah
You mean that the philosophical underpinnings serve as an umbrella for the whole research process!
2 Recommendations
Oxford Brookes University
Reza Sanaye I don't understand your point. Could you explain/expand?
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Very Dear Mr Jackson *
How do I best find out ? How do we arrive at the best solution AND SUCHLIKE . . . are not the intrinsically valuable points of departure OR points of destination , even though the Kapitalismus teleological ant-regimental system of education may want us to ................
We should rather learn ( and teach ) to stay put ; to pause for thought ; that is somehow to say : to "anchor" at the "Problematics" themselves rather than instantaneously search for their superficially so-called answers.
Quote :
The drive for creativity remains dominant in our society as it underpins our desire for innovation. We rely on creativity as the means to save us from ourselves by finding innovative solutions to otherwise intractable problems such as climate change. Creativity is thus essential to our survival as well as central to our economy. Indeed we now have the creative or cultural industries (Hesmondhalgh, 2002) with the creative classes being seen as the key economic resource (Florida, 2002). Creativity and innovation has become big business. But what is this creativity we speak of ? And what makes it creative ? As with most things, we recognize a thing as ‘this thing’ because it resembles something we are already know to be ‘one of those things’. Creativity is thus recognized as creativity because it looks, acts and appears to be creative – just like all the other creative acts that we’ve identified as such – but this doesn’t give us the genesis of the idea. This raises two important considerations. First, and fundamentally, it questions what we understand as creativity, which this paper answers by suggesting an alternative conception that challenges our taken-for-granted understanding. Secondly, it behoves us to reflect on the consequences of the fashion for creativity and innovation, and its limitations. This paper will explore these concerns by drawing on the work of Gilles Deleuze. Firstly it will set out the context of the creative imperative that is all pervasive before addressing the Deleuzian approach to creativity and – more fundamentally – to the act of thinking itself. In doing so it will question what we mean by problems and how we can avoid what Deleuze would call ‘ready made’ problems. The paper will then reflect on the nature of creativity of the so-called creativity and innovation in capitalist society before concluding with some thoughts on what it may mean to become more creative.{{ END OF QUOTE }}
From the treatise :
Questioning the common sense of creativity and innovation through Deleuzian thought
Emma Jeanes
1 Recommendation
Portland State University
Reza Sanaye As a pragmatist, my approach to philosophy is explicitly built around questions such as: How do I best find out ? How do we arrive at the best solution? In particular, pragmatism relies on questions about taking action and experiencing the consequences of that action. From a pragmatist position, taking action in everyday life differs from research only by degree: researchers spend more time and effort on systematically anticipating the outcomes of the actions they take, but in both cases the focus is still on what Dewey called "inquiry."
2 Recommendations
University of Basrah
So Sir you have made an excellent point in differentiating between research for academic purposes and research for everyday life problems! So, can we find a mid-way position in mixed methods research?
2 Recommendations
University of Basrah
Though I do not mean - as you did - academic research and research for everyday problems should be (or are) different! But there is some distinction being made at least!
2 Recommendations
Portland State University
Pragmatism does not distinguish between taking action in academic and everyday life, regardless of whether you use qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods in your research.
3 Recommendations
University of Basrah
So can we exclude pragmatism from the discussion of the philosophical underpinnings in mixed method research then - if we need to find some common grounds or some mid-way position?
2 Recommendations
Portland State University
Pragmatism is very much a part of the underpinnings of mixed methods research, especially as an alternative to the older emphasis on ontology-epistemology-methodology. Pragmatism views action as the fundamental aspect of research, rather than questions about the nature of reality (ontology) and the possibility of truth (epistemology).
4 Recommendations
Independent Environment & Development Facilitator
Dear R M M Pradeep,
Many thanks for your clarifications and explanations. I think distinguishing between the extent or breadth of disciplines encompassed by any particular research, as you do in responding to Asaad Chasib Hamood and David L Morgan, is both an interesting and necessary consideration (...but would suggest that the underlying assumptions to the argument be made explicit[1]).
Appreciating that the resulting ‘new knowledge’ in the memory map was intended as a metaphor for broader outputs, over and above consideration of those situations where different research disciplines are envisaged, and research is intended to bring about meaningful and favourable change (i.e. in people’s lives?), then the ownership and conceptualisation of the ‘problem/solution’ as presented in the memory map may yet need preliminary clarification? If as implied by – or I infer from – your reference to the 3-ologies, and particularly axiology, that these are determined by the researchers and/or by the prevailing thinking in the associated disciplines, how can one be sure that the worldviews, the knowledge systems, and the values of those intended to be beneficiaries of the research will be constructively accommodated - or do they not count?
There will of course be many cases where physical science can be usefully advanced without recourse to future or potential beneficiaries, and I highlighted this in my earlier contribution, but where research is focused on real-world issues in socio-ecological systems it must also take account of the views and intentions of those many other stakeholders. This became apparent in your earlier question on the league table for stakeholders.
As an example, water security and governance are critical and complex real-world issues, in which improvements or deterioration in any particular catchment can impact thousands of people and their environments, favourably or adversely. The socio-ecological complexity and uncertainties associated with these situations are such that there is no single research approach that can constructively build on the many, diverse and often conflicting worldviews and epistemologies held by catchment stakeholders. From a review of the literature and a case study, Fallon, Lankford and Western (2021) identify a landscape of possible solutions based on four major dimensions: science, policy, practice, and participation[2]. These major dimensions closely align with the findings of a 5 year programme of research in the Great Ruaha River Catchment, Tanzania – SWAUM – with which I was closely involved. Following multiple conventional but unsuccessful research approaches intended to understand and reverse the seasonal drying of the once perennial Great Ruaha River, SWAUM was piloting a ‘social learning’ approach specifically to address the challenges associated with catchment complexity, polycentric water governance, and competition in the access, use and management of water resources, and identified similar critical dimensions for the improvement of governance. The findings revealed there were pervasive weaknesses in: the integration within and between sectors (including between freshwater ecosystem conservation & WASH); engagement & involvement of local people, especially poor, disadvantaged and hard-to reach groups, and of the private sector; integration of upstream-downstream working; devolution of climate change adaptation (CAA) from and through national to local; and the integration of practice, research and policy-making to improve strategic decision-making[3].
Apologies if this appears to be over-egging the complexity custard, but my experience is that the appeal of ‘research as usual’ remains powerfully embedded in parts of academia, while conceding that cause & affect analyses are impotent in the face of complexity remains daunting for many technical experts and managers; and indeed overcoming the scepticism of in-house colleagues was a prime constraint on SWAUM’s progress. All the best.
[1] For example, in the case of research associated with closely related disciplines, while it is tempting to assume that that this implies shared ontologies and shared epistemologies, which in turn might reasonably be expected to influence and tend to reconcile differences in individuals’ axiologies, were this the case would it not inhibit the sort of break-throughs and step-changes in thinking – as opposed to the incremental expansion of the knowledge envelop – critical to ground-breaking research and innovation?
[2] Fallon, A. L., B. A. Lankford, and D. Weston. 2021. Navigating wicked water governance in the "solutionscape" of science, policy,practice, and participation. Ecology and Society 26(2):37: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352399192
[3] Sustainable Water Access, Use and Management (SWAUM) Programme, 2011-2016: Making Catchment Governance Work for All: The Integration Challenge: Putting the ‘I’ in ‘IWRM’! - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318210554
1 Recommendation
Oxford Brookes University
Just to clarify that when I referred to the question, 'How do we best find out', I didn't mean to imply that there was a single answer. Working with students, I'm as interested in their thinking process as I am with furthering any particular conventional approach. Their specific research question might mean that methodological choices are be driven more by a slightly different aim, 'How do we best explore'. And their methodological thinking may well legitimately include going outside of existing conventions.
1 Recommendation
University of Basrah
Thank you so much Sir for the clarification. I now fully understand. Grateful to you.
1 Recommendation
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Dear Sirs,
Thank you very much for the sub-questions and the answers. You made the discussion a more interesting one and I see the problem from a different angle now.
Respect you Asaad Chasib Hamood , your first question is
- "You kindly stated that there is an agreement between ontology & epistemology when disciplines are closely related and there is a contradiction or difference between ontology & epistemology when the disciplines are different! I do not seem to quite understand what do you mean by that! I look upon ontology as the research question and epistemology as the research findings! How can then be an agreement or disagreement between them when the disciplines are similar or dissimilar? What are the similar disciplines? And what are the different disciplines? Can you please supply examples?
- And when you talked about axiology, were you speaking about it in terms of value?"
Sir, the highlighted text grab my attention as I'm in a different understanding of the terms. Then when I'm in your shoes, my explanations are totally wrong. 100% agreed.
Hence let me to explain my understanding
For the meaning of these words, there are different arguments, one nice question asked by RG member Chaudry Bilal Ahmad Khan (https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-Ontology-and-Epistomology) he got 100 answers with different explanations.
To develop my mind map I started the reading with
In saunders et al book they suggest a nice tool to find your philosophical position called HARP.
Accordingly and following Chaudray's question I came to an understanding of Ontology as the theory of being (what is the real truth - What is the world like) and Epistemology is the theory of knowledge (how humans define and describe the truth - What is considered acceptable knowledge) See 135 page of the referenced document. As well the Axiology is meant what my (researchers) value to the research.
Then those may be exemplified like;
1. Ontology: Animals have only one father
2. Epistemology: Fathers love their kids, Some kids have more than one "Father"
3. Axiology: The father who looks after the kid at his/her small age (say 3 years to 12 years) is become the kid's most loved father.
Then you can see
1. is proved and accepted by the world for a long time of research and experience of humankind. the concept based on reproduction.
2. is accepted in most of the communities, regarding marriage rather than reproduction activities.
3. is depend on the individual researcher and his coworkers.
with this understanding researcher can raise a problem,
"Is father become the most loved male of a kid, if father only look after the kids in his small age?"
This research question/ problem is based on axiological belief but, the axiological belief depends on the epistemology and ontology beliefs.
Then such question is along with the axiological and ontological truths.
But sometimes with the different experiences of a researcher such as
"Second fathers of the kid never loved the kid and treated badly" then his axiology become a radical one.
Then his research problem may be " Are males required only sex from a marriage?"
Then he is going against the epistemological beliefs.
So my point is even in whatever the above two situations, Ontology, epistemology and axiology positively or negatively affect the research question.
but think about Biological scientist's and social scientist's ontological beliefs on "fatherhood". definitely, they have two meanings; as Biologists know some animals are born without fathers. But in the social science continua, the father is a sine-quo-none for the living body in their discipline. One another good example of this is taken from the internet (sorry can not remember), the question is "what is the best method to make the tastiest chicken curry?". But this is not an acceptable question for a vegetarian community, as their ontology is "Chicken is not a food!"
Then it is the explanation for your second question
- I disagree with you on that! The relation (or interaction) between ontology & epistemology and axiology is NOT independent of..
With respect to you both, I forward this explanation.
But I believe that these terms should have different explanations, as those were subjected to utilised by different researchers on different aspects.
Hence keeping two different meanings is not a crime but we must have common thinking on the real underpinning of the research, it is important.
Therefore, I request to give a comment considering my understanding (not on terminology) regarding the following statement;
"I think no one can argue somebody's research idea. In line with such, I think, very dominant or obedient research ideas, or radical or crazy ideas, are generated from somebodies mind, supporting or challenging such Onto-Epis-Axio beliefs"
- here please replace the "Onto-Epis-Axio" with the idea which I presented in this explanation.
Again thank you very much for given very valuable comments in this discussion.
RMM Pradeep
2 Recommendations
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your advicing comment.
As you have exactly highlighted;....
"Despite this modelling, people remain unclear about what terms relate to what philosophical question, they interchange, mix them up, compare apples with dragonflies and research students end up with statements like 'I believe everyone creates their own reality' which, if correct, would dispense with all research aimed at public knowledge creation"
... we, the novel researchers, are in such a problem.
Really we need clear guidelines such as answering the questions as you suggested.
- "Do you have a meaningful question and an appropriate means for answering it?"
- "What kind of thing am I interested in researching?
- "what would knowledge about that thing look like"
- 'how do I best find out?'
But the problem comes in multi-disciplinary reviewing panels, They ask the "Apple" and "Dragon Fly".
Sir, we need at least to understand how the apple and dragonfly are NOT interrelating. Then I tried to develop the given Mind-map. Say frankly, I believe no PhD student in the computing field is eager to prove onto-epis-Axio contunea. But I got interested in it as they are very meaning full and related to any bodies research.
With the understanding, I got from the answers, I have to update the second mind-map (attached). I kindly request to see it and suggest the modification required if you have to give it as a simple guide to your PhD students.
Thank you very much, sir
RMM Pradeep
The eye-catching statement in your comment apart from the main points is
- "but strictly speaking if your question is about a 'what people do in practice' sort of thing, then it seems that 'what people say in interviews' might only be unreliably linked to it."
2 Recommendations
Oxford Brookes University
R M M Pradeep I very much applaud your curiosity, especially working from a field that might not concern itself so much with these questions. You've seen from reading around on ResearchGate that it's something that I've also wanted to get straight in my own mind.
As regards your v2, I like your new separation of the problem domain (though I wouldn't choose to describe the differentiation as "problem/solution" ... perhaps more "phenomenon/enquiry").
For me, the ontological question is a way or approaching the phenomenon of interest. It's not entirely or necessarily a quality of the phenomenon, or of the researcher, but a way of refining the understanding of the researcher's interest in the phenomenon. Then the epistemological question, similarly creates a foundation for methodological choices. Hence 'research philosophy' - which is elevated in many text books - is quite a loose and contingent 'shape' of attitudes borne out in the research, primarily the question and the methodology. I'm not sure how that would be expressed in your diagram.
When I referred to apples and dragonflies, I was thinking of the way that different texts use different terms to refer to what appears to be the same thing, and the same terms to refer to different things. For example, I've seen objective/objectivism referred in different places to as ontology, epistemology or paradigm. There are many other examples.
4 Recommendations
University of Basrah
R M M Pradeep Thank you so much for your explanation. Grateful to you.
I like the familial example that you kindly supply! Yes! I do agree with you!
2 Recommendations
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Peter Jackson Thank you very much for the open answer that expressed the way we should think more openly. I feel like no more answers, I have to think my second mind map is somewhat near to the existing knowledge. As well I found that this discussion is going to be an interesting reference to my studies. I thank you all for participating and giving your honest comments and valuable time spent on the development of students.
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Peter Jackson ; do you agree with this quote ??
"You need to be conscious in interview data analysis as "what people do in practice" is not exactly reflected in "what people say in interviews"
Peter Jackson
Oxford Brookes University, UK"
1 Recommendation
Portland State University
I think most people are quite honest interviews, but they genuinely do not know what they would do in a specific set of circumstances.
2 Recommendations
Oxford Brookes University
R M M Pradeep you seem to have quoted me from somewhere, and I said more or less the same thing earlier in this discussion, so, yes, that is my view.
There are all sorts of psychological processes involved in people answering interview questions including memory, social desirability, sense of self, self-esteem, impression management etc etc. What they say is not necessarily reliably related to what they do, think or feel, or as Prof Morgan points out above, what they would do in a specific set of circumstance. At the same time, it is often the most practicable way of attempting to find out those things, so researchers should be aware of this potential gap.
2 Recommendations
Independent Environment & Development Facilitator
You readily capture one set of the limitations of researcher-led interviews Peter Jackson, which includes - and you allude to it - the sharing or withholding of knowledge/information, as a means of wielding power. This is often associated with 'political' players, both formal and informal, official or local. My experience is that together with the psychological processes associate with the respondents, researchers themselves, even - particularly - when professing objectivity or neutrality, frequently underestimate their influence on and in any given situation. In most if not all social situations, not only are researchers 'stakeholders' but they are widely interpreted as or seen to be stakeholders (i.e. having an interest/agenda). It's a much wider discussion, but this for me has pointed to the relevance and usefulness of multi-stakeholder processes (e.g. collective action, CDD, social learning, critical institutionalism/bricolage) in situations of complexity. Enjoyed you contributions - thank you.
1 Recommendation
Similar questions and discussions
Related Publications
The requirements of software development within an organization have undergone two major changes in the last several years like project based learning and research methodology. Before the widely use of data processing, application development and hands-on training, the output of software/design felt to be valuable to an organization was provided pr...
This book has been written with the view of two groups of readers in the mindset of the authors - first, Bachelor's degree students; and second, those faculties involved in research methodology teaching-learning activities in the university level.
In an introductory research methods course, students often develop research questions and hypotheses that are vague or confusing, do not contain measurable concepts, and are too narrow in scope or vision. Because of this, the final research projects often fail to provide useful information or address the overall research problem. A Lesson Study app...