Marsh and Furlong Notes

Each persons orientation to their subject is shaped by their ontological and

epistemological position. Most often these positions are implicit rather than explicit
shape the approach to theory and the methods which the social scientist utilizes. This
approach can be considered like a skin not a sweater.
Ontological positions affect epistemological positions. Ontological questions deal
with the nature of being, and ontology is the theory of being derives from the greek
word for existence. The key question is whether there is a real world out there or not
- a real world independent of our knowledge of it. If differences persist over time
essentialist ontological position. Or are differences socially constructed not essential
differences but particular to a given culture or time. This emphasizes the social
construction of social phenomena.
Ontology reflects the view about the nature of the world, and epistemological position
reflects view of what we can know about the world and how we can know it it is the
theory of knowledge.
Can real or objective relations be observed between social phenomena? If the viewer
doesnt believe in a real world which exists independently of the meaning which
actors attach to their action then no observer can be objective since the observer exists
in a social world affected by social constructions of reality. Double hermeneutic
world is interpreted by the actors and their interpretation is interpreted by the
observer. Are there some relationships which exist but are not directly observable?
So the extent that real relationships between social phenomena can be established and can they be established through direct observation or do some exist without being
directly observable.
Scientific positivist belief that knowledge starts from our sense. Through direct
experience it is possible to develop generalizations about the relationships between
physical phenomena. The aim was to develop causal statements which specified that
under a given set of conditions there would be regular and predictable outcomes. This
indicates a foundational ontological position there is a real world out there, which is
external to agents. The focus is identifying the causes of social behavior. Rigorous
scientific methods would allow social scientists to develop laws similar to scientific
laws which would hold across time and space.
In methodological terms the scientific tradition is influenced by logical positivism
positivist position.
Hermeneutic to interpret are antifoundationalists believing the world is socially
constructed and focus upon the meaning of behavior. The emphasis is upon
understanding rather than explanation. The interpretist tradition does not establish
causal relationships between phenomena that hold across time and space.
Positivists adhere to a foundationalist ontology and are concerned to establish causal
relationships between social phenomena thus developing explanatory and predictive
models. The realist is also foundationalist in ontological terms, however unlike
positivists realists do not privilege direct observation. The realist believes that there
are deep structural relationships between social phenomena which cannot be directly
observed but are crucial for any explanation of behavior. A realist might argue that

patriarchy is a structure that cannot be directly observed yet we can see consequences
of it.
Normative power is a structure that cannot be directly observed although we can
observe may of the consequences of it. Positions are not interchangeable because they
reflect fundamental different approaches to what social science is and how we do it.
This is the key point. A positivist looks for causal relationships and prefers
quantitative analysis to product objective and generalisable findings. The interpretist
is concerned with understanding not explanation and focuses on the meaning that
actions have for agents tending to use qualitative evidence and offers their results as
one interpretation of the relationship between the social phenomena studied. Realism
is less easy to classify in this way the realists looking for causal relationships think
that many important relationships cannot be observed. The quantitative data is only
appropraite for relationships that are directly observable.
Positivism is based on foundationalist ontology the world exists independently of
our knowledge of it. Establish regular relationships between social phenomena using
theory to generate hypotheses which can be tested by direct observation. There are
therefore no deep structures that cannot be observed. Positivism contended that there
is no appearance/reality dichotomy and that the world is real and not socially
constructed. Therefore direct observations test the validity of a theory. An observer
can be objective in the way they undertake such observations.
Interpretists do not accept objectivity and realists accept that all observation is
mediated by theory to the realist theory plays the crucial role in allowing the
researcher to distinguish between those social phenomena which are directly
observable and those which are not.
The positivists aim to make causal statements to establish causal relationships
between social phenomena.
Positivists argues that it is possible to separate empirical questions from normative
questions.
the knowledge derives from the five sense is mediated by the concepts we use to
analyze it, thus there is no way of classifying or describing experience without
interpreting it. Theory and experiment are not simply separable and theory affects
both the facts we focus on and how we interpret them. If we observe facts which are
inconsistent with the theory we might decide that the facts are wrong rather than the
theory is wrong.
Kuhn suggested that science is dominated by a particular paradigm that is
unquestioned and affects the interpretation of observations. Obvious differences
between social and natural phenomena that make social science impossible. Social
structures unlike natural structures do not exist independently. Social structures do
also not exist independently of agents views of what they are doing in the activity.
People are reflexive they reflect on what they are doing and change their actions in
light of that reflection. This leads us to the third difference social structures change
as a result of the actions of agents and vary across time and space. Some positivist
social scientists minimise these differences but to the extent that they are accepted
they point towards a more interpretist epistemological position.

The interpretist position is the obvious other of positivism much broader church
than positivism. The world is socially or discursively constructed opposed to
positivism but shares certain features with realism. The position is antifoundationalist.
Thus researchers working within this tradition social phenomena does not exist
independently of our interpretation of them, rather it is this interpretation of social
phenomena which affects outcomes. The interpretations meanings of social
phenomena are crucial and can only be established and understood within discourses
or traditions. Must also acknowledge the objective analysis is impossible. Social
scientists are not privileged but operate within discourses or traditions. Knowledge is
theoretically or discursively laden. Quantitative methods can be blunt instruments and
may produce misleading data must utlize qualitative methods interviews focus
groups and so on to help establish how people understand the world. Major criticism
is that interpretist tradition merely offers opinions or subjective judgements about the
world. No basis on which to judge the validity of their knowledge claims, the persons
view of the world and relationship between social phenomena is as good as anothers
view. The hermeneutic tradition is idealist argues need to understand the meanings
people attach to social behavior concerned with interpretation of texts and actions.
Produce thick description establish own constructions of other peoples constructions
of what they are up to. Develop a narrative about the past based on the meanings
which the actions had for social actors. Then on the basis of this thick description they
offer an interpretation of what this tells us about the society. These interpretations are
always partial and provisional not true. This variant of the interpretist tradition is so
diverse that it is difficult if not impossible to characterise. They overcome this
problem by focusing on the work of michel foucault. Strong opponent of
foundationalism and the modernisation project associated with the enlightenment. The
basis of human knowledge is direct experience it is possible to develop an objective
view of the rela world.
In contrast, foucault argues that experience is acquired within a prior discourse
language is crucial because institutions and actions only acquire a meaning through
language. To understand an object or action, political scientists have to interpret it in
the wider discourse of which it is part. It is the social discourse rather than the beliefs
of individuals which are crucial to foucaults version of the interpretist position. Social
science is about the development of narratives not theories. They stress the
importance of understanding and the impossibility of absolute knowledge claims
defend a limited notion of objectivity. The researcher can produce an explanation of
an event or of the relationships between social phenomena but this explanation is
built upon their interpretation of the meanings the actors involved gave to their
actions. Any such narrative is provisional.
Hang on to the idea of objectivity. The field of study is cooperative 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. Standards are historically embedded within social
practices traditions and narratives which provide embedded reasons for judging an
argument true or false. Objective knwoledge should be conceived as a normative
standard embedded in a practice of criticising and comparing rival accounts of agreed
facts. The anti foundational nature of this practice lies in its appeal not to given facts
but to those agreed in a particular community or conversation. The normative critical
bite of our approach lies in conducting the comaprison by the rules of intellectual
honesty.

Reaism shares an ontological position with positivism but in epistemological terms

modern realism has more in common with relativism.
The world exists independently of our knowledge foundationalist. Social
phenomena do have causal powers. However not all social phenemona and the
relationships between them are directly observable. Deep unobservable structures may
offer a false picture of the phenomena structures and their effects.
Positivists deny the existence of unobservable structures and argue that positing such
knowledge claims makes them untestable and thus unfalsifiable. Interpretists criticize
realist claims that structures are independent of social action and no objective basis on
which to observe the actions or infer the deep structures. The realist claim that
structures cause social action are rejected on ontological and epistemological grounds.
Structures do not determine they constrain and facilitate. And knowledge is fallible as
it is theory laden. It is important to understand both the external reality and the social
construction of that reality to explain relationships between social phenomena.
Realism has clear methodological implications there is a real world out there but
outcomes are shaped by the way in which that world is socially constructed. Realists
might use quantitative and qualitative data analyze qualitatively how globalisation is
perceived or constructed by governments because realist argument would be that both
reality and the discursive construction affect responses to pressure. Any apparent
agreement between them however limited scope have different origins.
Benton & Craib
Positivism or some form of interpretivism non-empiricist views of natural sciences.
The implications of the critical realist approach for the conduct of the human sciences
remain controversial it has proved very fruitful in stimulating new research agenda in
a number of human sciences and interdisciplinary fields. Roy bhaskar provided the
most systematically developed and influential version of the approach especially in its
account of the natural sciences. The implications of this for the social sciences are
subject to more disagreement among critical realists and we will attempt to convey
something of the issues which remain unresolved. Bhaskars more recent development
of an ambitious dialectical philosophy and engagement with eastern philosophies take
us beyond the scope of this book. Realists in the theory of knowledge are committed
to the existence of a real world which exists and acts independently of our knowledge
or beliefs about it. However the externalworld is in principle knowable and to some
extent discoverable and open to change on the basis of such knowledge as we are able
to achieve.
Critical realists inherit the optimistic view of the role of knowledge in human self
emancipation. Critical realism holds that people make sense of cognitive practices on
the assumption that they are about something that exists independently. It does not
pronounce whether the truth claims of any particular science at any particular time are
true critical realism shares a reflexivity about conditions of possibility for thought or
language to represent something outside itself. Critical realism theorizes knowledge
as a social process which involves variable means of representation. Knowledge has
to be a process and an achievement. Critical realist insistence on the independent
reality of the objects of our knowledge and the necessity of work to overcome
misleading appearances implies that current beliefs will always be open to correction
in the light of further cognitive work observations experimental evidence
interpretations theoretical reasoning dialogue. Critical realism is fallibilist in contrast

to idealist and relativist theories of knowledge which insulate themselves from the
possibility of being proved wrong by doing away with the idea of a knowable
independent reality.
Realists argue that the great intellectual achievement of science is to have discovered
that the world is more complex in its structure than common sense understanding
could have imagined. Philosophy of science tries to understand the forms of
investigation and reasoning that enabled scientists to do this. Philosophers
emphasized the role of analogy and metaphor in scientific theory building. Patterns of
unobservable phenomena what underlying structure or mechanism would explain
this pattern - retroduction.
Critical realism offers apparently much stronger philosophical arguments for this view
of the nature of science. transcendental argument. What must be the case for a
phenomenon t be possible? If some condition can be identified as a necessary
condition for phenomenona, then if we accept that the phenomenon is actual then it
must be possible so the conditions which make it possible must be satisfied. If jane is
a student, then there must be teachers and educational institutions.
If someone is a student then educational institutions must exist. Bhaskar constructs
transcendental arguments on the basis of uncontroversial descriptions of scientific
practices such as experimentation, scientific disputes and the application of scientific
knowledge in technology. Statements about what scientific investigators must be like
for them to be able to conduct experiments. Bhaskar uses the term intransitive
dimension to characterize the referents of the first set of statements and the term
transitive dimension for the second. What must the world be like in order for
distinctively scientific practices such as experiments to be possible?
Scientific experiment is a practical intervention which seeks to isolate just one
mechanism so that its operations can be studied without the interference of its
interactions with other mechanisms. Bhaskar argues that when a single mechanism is
isolated in this way regular event sequences may be triggered. Laws of nature must be
something else independent of the event sequences which are artificially produced in
the experiment. The laws discovered by experiments are tendencies of the underlying
mechanisms which may not issue in regular and observable event sequences when the
mechanism is interacting with other mechanisms outside the artificial experimental
situation. This account of laws as tendencies of mechanisms as disclosed by scientific
experiments is the key realist conclusion from the analysis of experimentation.
Experimentation as a practice would be unintelligible if the mechanisms and their
tendencies under investigation did not exist independently of the activities and beliefs
of the experimenters.
The basic structure of the intransitive dimension can be inferred from the analysis of
the conditions of possibility of experiment. Three levels of reality real world of
mechanisms, powers, tendencies and so on which science seeks to discover. The
actual level of flows or sequences of events which may be produced under
experimental conditions or occur in more complex and less predictable conjunctures.
The empirical level fof observed events which is a small subset of b. the analysis of
experimentaiton shows only that there must be underlying causal mechanisms and
powers. It does not tell us anything about what they are. Thus critical realism claims
there is a reality independent of scientific investigation but this reality is stratified.
The key levels identified in bhaskars ontology are the real, the actual and the
empirical. Bhaskar accepts that each level is real the metaphor of levels implies that
critical realism is a form of depth realism such that scientific investigation attempts to

penetrate behind or below the surface appearance of things to uncover their generative
causes.
The idea of reality is layered. The different scientific disciplines are each concerned
with a particular level of reality they
The general idea of sciences uncovering layers of a stratified reality is widely shared
there remain issues which divide critical realists among themselves and also divide
them from other realist approaches. There is space here to deal with only two of these
issues. If the mechanisms of one level are held to explain those at a higher level then
it might seem that as soon as the lower level science has been established it can
replace the higher level one. Reductionist interpretations of layering of reality are
opposed by critical realism because the lower level science explain only the
constitution of the mechanisms at the higher level. Once higher level mechanisms are
formed their activities have effects on lower level ones. Causality can flow down the
hierarchy as well as up it. It follows that the mechanisms onstituted at each level have
their own specific reality. It also follows that the sciences of the lower level
mechanisms can contribute to explaining the behavior of the higher level mechanisms.
The association between levels and particular sciences is in part explained by the way
entities at the higher levels have properties and powers not predictable in advance on
the basis of properties of lower level entities. Society is not created by the conscious
decisions of individual people it pre exists them and moulds their mental life. It is
hard to see how the various interacting causal mechanisms could be isolated
experimentally and this poses serious problems for the scientific status of the
disciplines. Where mechanisms coexist and interact with one another in contingent
ways bhaskar speaks of open systems where mechanisms naturally exist in isolation
or where artificial isolation bhaskar speaks of closed systems. Experiments could
not be possible if all mechanisms naturally occurred in closed systems. Both scientific
experiment and application of science presuppose that causal mechanisms can exist
and act in either open or closed systems and that the laws of nature apply
transfactually in both open and closed systems. The intransitive dimension as
disclosed by the analysis of experiment and scientific application its differentiation.
The world exists independently of our beliefs but it is differentiated and stratified.
The transitive dimension what must be the case for science to be possible. This is
the transitive conditions or dimensions of science. Critical realism is close to kuhn
by recognizing the social and historical character of science. Science as a social
practice presupposes the institutions of scientific communication and criticism and the
role of metaphor in scientific reasoning implies the existence of a culture which can
be drawn on for the conceptual raw materials for the production of scientific
knowledge. There is in critical realism also an emphasis on experimental practice.
This presupposes humans as embodied agents capable of deliberately intervening in
the world monitoring the consequences of their interventions as well as entering into
critical dialogue about how to interpret those consequences.
it recognizes science as a social practice and scientific knowledge as a social product.
It recognizes the independent existence of the objects of scientific knowledge. It has
an account of scientific experiment and discovery as simultaneously material and
social practices in virtue of which both two above are sustaned. So long as we
recognize the diversity among the different natural sciences there is no reason to draw
a strong dividing line between natural and social sciences. Bhaskar advocates critical
naturalism accepting the proposal to study societyon the model of the natural

sciences- hpwever even because of the fundamental differences between natural and
social objects of knowledge it is still possible to have a science of society in the same
sense as the sciences of nature. Social realities exist independently of the beliefs held
about them by individuals, difference between social structures and their forms of
apperance as a fallible process of explaining appearances in terms of the realities
which produce them. The theories of knowledge justified their explanatory work often
obscured or explicitly ruled out some of the commitmenets. Existing explanatory
work in social science begs the question is society the sort of thing that can be studied
scientifically. Actions are possible on the condition that the agent is situated in a set of
institutional relations which exist prior to and independently of their actions.
Institutions do not exist independently of the activities of people but are nothing but
regularities in the aggregate patterning of those activities. This is a methodological
individualist might make. Bhaskar refers to the dialectical view of peter berger and his
associates society is an outcome of individual agency which then reacts back upon
individuals. Bhaskar rejects this. Social structures are both conditions and outcomes
of human agency. People as both products of and conditions of possibility of social
structures. Society and persons are distinct levels both real but interdependent and
interacting with one another. This solution to the structure agency problem then
involves a commitment to the reality of social structures conceived as relations
between social agents in virtue of their occupancy of social positions. Structures are
causally efficacious in that they both enable actions which would otherwise not be
possible and constrain actions. Bhaskar develops transformational model of social
action only through activities of social agents that social structures are kept in being
reproduced but individual or collective agency may also modify or transform social
structures. The outcome of social action in either reproducing or transforming social
structures may be unintended as when employees go to work in order to earn a living
but in doing so also help reproduce capitalist relations of production. Social structures
and human agents are ontologically distinct from each other.
Continuous transaction between intentionally acting human agents and the social
structures they reproduce or transform seems to neglect both human embodiment and
the significance of non human materials processes living beings in human social life.
Naturalism means that there can be a scientific study of social life. Bhaskar is
committed to this. But social structure and agency imply some radical ontological
differences between nature and society with implications for the possibility of our
knowledge of them. Ontological limits include social structures are maintained
through the activities of agents whereas this is not true of structures in nature. Social
structures are concept dependent, they are reproduced by actors in virtue of the beliefs
actors have about what they are doing social structures are also relatively enduring
unlike structures in nature. The relational limit to naturalism derives from the fact that
social science is itself a social practice and so is part of its own subject matter.
Intransitive dimension independently existing objects of knowledge
Transitive dimension social process of production of knowledge.
Impossible to experimentally close social sciences. The fact that social structures are
only relatively enduring does not prevent their being real nor does it prevent their
being objects of scientific investigation during the time period or within the spatial
limits of their occurrence. Social science can take itself as its own object of study it
is possible to distinguish what is being studied from the process of studying it. It
could be argued that the self referential character of sociology encourages a beneficial
methodological reflexvitiy which is less evident in the natural sciences.
Epistemological limit deriving from the necessary occurrence of social phenomena in

open systems and the consequent impossibility of experimental closure is an issue.

Another alternative to experiment is the use of transcendental arguments social
practices under agreed descriptions can be analyzed in terms of their conditions of
possibility and accounts of the underlying social structures built up in that way. Imply
a limited role for empirical research.
Bhaskar makes a connection between critical realist philosophy and emancipatory
politics close connection between knowledge of self and society and human
emancipation or freedom from domination. The link between knowledge and
emancipation is made on a very closely related basis by the two thinkers. The key
concept is the explanatory critique common sense understanding of the wage
contract as an exchange of a x labor for x money. The capitalist gets rich while the
worker remains poor. The wage form is misleading and entails false beliefs about
peoples real relationships.
Causing false beliefs is not the only or main problem with capitalism. Other things
being equal clause. False beliefs is a bad thing acquiring true beliefs about oppression
is by no means necessarily entailing emancipation. Finding out the truth may be in
itself emancipatory. Explanatory critiques may be used to generate arguments in
favour of social transformations for reasons other than the propensity to spread false
beliefs. The extension of emancipatory critique from cognitive error to unsatisfied
needs makes it clear that false beliefs is not the only chain that binds us and it is
massively outweighed by others in terms of urgent human problems. peasants who
grow food they cannot afford to eat may know what would make them free but lack
the power to get it. Moral realism one virtue is that it avoids the sort of moral
relativism which makes dialogue between different moral standpoints impossible or
pointless. There may be no cost free process of emancipatory social change. Ending
poverty may involve curtailing individual liberties.
Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method
The function of documents as a data source in qualitative research and specific
examples of the use of documents in the research process.
Reviewed literature the procedure followed and outcomes of the analyses of
documents. Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing documents
both printed and electronic material. Document analysis requires that data be
examined and interpreted in order to elicit meaning gain understanding and develop
empirical knowledge. Documents contain text and images that have been recorded
without a researchers intervention. The analytic procedure entails finding selecting
appraising and synthesising data contained in documents. Document analysis yields
data excerpts quotations or entire passages that are organised into major themes,
categories and case examples through content analysis.
It is often used in combination with other qualitative research methods as a means of
triangulation combining methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon. Draw
upon multiple sources of evidence to seek convergence and corroboration through the
use of different data sources and methods. Apart from documents such sources
include interviews, participant observation and physical artifcats. Triangulating data
provides a confluence of evidence that breeds credibility.
Examining information collected through different methods the researcher can
corroborate findings across data sets and thus reduce the impact of potential biases
that can exist in a single study. Triangulation helps the researcher guard against the

accusation that a studys findings are simply an artifact of a single method. Mixed
methods studies combining quantitiative and qualitative research may include
document analysis. Such as surveys and open ended semi structured interviews with
review of documents.
Document analysis is relevant to qualitative case studies - intensive studies producing
rich descriptions of a single phenomenon event organisation or program. Documents
of all types can help the researcher uncover meaning develop understanding and
discover insights relevant to the research problem. The use of triangulation validates
and corroborates data obtained during the study. Qualitative research requires robust
data collection techniques and the documentation of the research procedure.whereas
document analysis served mostly as a complement to other research methods its also a
stand alone method. The rationale for document analysis lies in its role in
methodological and data triangulation.the value of documents in case study research
and its usefuleness as a stand alone method for specialised forms of qualitative
research. Information contained in documents can suggest some questions that need to
be asked and situations that need to be observed as part of the research to generate
interview questions. Browse library catalogues and archives for documents to be
analysed as part of the research process. Documents can be analyzed as a way to
verify findings or corroborate evidence from other sources. Document analysis is an
efficient method less time consuming, data selection availability easy access. Cost
effective lack of obtrusiveness and reactivity. Stability documents are stable.
Exactness documents contain references and details. Coverage many settings
events and long span of time.
Limitations include insufficient detail low retrievability biased selectivity an
incomplete collection of documents suggests biased selectivity.
From reading documents available through the library it became apparent that
the other side was missing making a non-eurocentric approach more difficult
yet simultaneously more appealing.
Document analysis involves skimming, reading and interpretation. This iterative
process combines elements of content analysis and thematic analysis. Content
analysis is the process of organising information into categories related to the
questions of the research. Researcher should demonstrate the capacity to identify
pertinent information and separate it from what is not pertinent.
Thematic analysis is a form of pattern recognition within the data emerging themes
become categories for analysis. Careful focused rereading and review of the data.
Coding and category construction based on datas characteristics to uncover themes
pertinent to a phenomenon. Overarching themes capture the phenomenon. Documents
must be looked at critically should not treat documents as necessarily precise
accurate or complete they should establish meaning of the document and its
contributin to the issues being explored. The resercher should also determine the
relevance of documents to the research problem and purpose. Also the researcher
should ascertain whether the content of the documents fits the conceptual framework
of the study. It is necessary to determine the authenticity credibility accuracy and
representativeness of the selected documents.
Documents should be comprehensive or selective. A grounded theory is one that is
inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents. It is discovered

developed and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and analysis
of data pertaining to that phenomenon.
The documents selected and data mined were incomplete, fragmentary and selective
in that only the positive aspects of the EUs action were documented.
Data on the eus development policy as a strategy to provide sustainable growth and
poverty reduction.
A thorough review of documentation provided background information that helped
understand the sociocultural political and economic context in which the EUs
development strategy were conceived and implemented.
The documentary data served to ground the research in the context. The investigator is
the primary instrument of data collection and analysis. The researcher analyst relies
on skills as well as intuition and filters data through an interpretive lens.