PSYC 217 Epistemology

Epistomology

a theory of knowing or knowledge, comes from philosophy

• how do we know what we know? how does knowing happen? how is it organized?

• how do we go about choosing one account or explanation over another? who’s explanation is better?

• how is knowing enabled or constrained?

• involves assumptions about the knower (researcher)

  • who the person is, what questions, their experiences, beliefs, can impact what you find out

• the known (what you’re studying), and the relationship between them or the process of knowing (research methods)

  • different tools = different answers/reveals different information

Epistemological orientations

lies on a continuum, where does each discipline fall?

1. positivist

2. critical realist

3. standpoint

4. radical social constructionist

Positivist

• one extreme, what the general public believes of science

• the world is governed by underlying regularities and natural laws

• the Truth exists and can be uncovered through systematic observation

• objectivity: good science is value free

  • observer/knower’s personality and feelings introduce error to our research → remove individual

  • personal values minimized by scientific methods

• replicability is a key component → in a good study, who the researcher is shouldn’t matter

• try to remove the experimenter expectancy effect, the search for the truth is known is we can replicate over and over

• the knower and the known must be completely seperate

• the identity, experiences and interests of the knower should not influence their process of knowing

• all knowers see the known in the same way

  • e.g., statistical analysis of data should not be influences by who the researcher is

Critical realism

• not observing the world itself, but in the way our instruments and tools interpret it

• the world exists independently of our thinking about it

• there are patterns to the way the world works

• scientific rationality is imperfect and limited but the best option → still want to use the scientific method, but think carefully about design of studies, etc.

• the world is complex and changing: (psychological) phenomena have multiple causes → true of many phenomena too (e.g., human communication is always changing)

  • no one “truth,” “accurate” for that time period maybe

• knowledge generalization = ongoing collaborative community project → many knowers asking different questions

• scientific understandings improve over time

• in social sciences, there is no Truth - psychology falls in this category

• the knower is shaped and limited by the discourses of culture and science

• the known us complex and changing (will never be more than an increasingly accurate approximation of reality)

  • always keep learning more, getting closer to the truth but will never “arrive” at it

• the process of knowing is mediated by culture and scientific tools but amenable to adjustment and increasing refinement → as methods change, we can get closer to what we’re studying

Standpoint

• questions we ask/perspectives are different depending on what “group” we’re in → daily lived experience affects things a lot

• knowing always happens from somewhere

  • history, culture, interests, physical location…

• our perspectives are informed by:

  • our social locations (e.g., class, race, gender, sexual orientation)

  • being marginalized or privileged

  • our daily experiences

• academic research privileges some standpoints over others (rich white men)

• some marginalized groups are routinely the object of research; rarely the observer

  • e.g., homeless people are almost never in the position to do academic research, but may ask different questions based on their lived experiences

• to really know something, you need to include people with different perspectives → e.g., racism, have to include white people but also minority groups

• every knower has a particular vantage point, the known differs depending on who is doing the knowing, and when and how they do it, and the process of knowing is partial, local, and historically specific → dependant on what perspective the knower is coming from

• e.g., only men doing research means they are not going to care about women’s health, which is why there is less research/funding

Radical social constructionism

• other extreme

• natural laws do not exist for the social sciences

• institutions produce the social world that they claim to only study → e.g., churches, medicine, criminal justice system

• social scientific classifying, labelling, diagnosing, and treating groups and individuals actually creates those individuals and groups

  • who they are

  • how they understand themselves

  • how others see and treat them

• e.g., beauty doesn’t actually exist, it changes throughout history and cultures → want to understand the the current idea of beauty is created → look at the media, cosmetics, why is aging not considered beautiful?

• homosexuality → which institution?

  • a moral issue → a sin, religion, study of theology, telling people how to perceive something

  • a crime → legal system, scholarship of crime and deviance, telling people they are doing something wrong

  • an illness, psychological disorder → telling people what to think about

  • a human right → government and legal system, sexualities scholarship

  • biological → medical system, natural sciences (search for the “gay gene” why not the straight gene?)

• the knower produces the known through the process of knowing

• radical implications: everything we know is a product of our perception

Epistemology and methodology

your epistemological position informs how you do research:

• what is important to study?

• what is a valid, useful research question?

• what method is most effective for answering this question?

• what participants/texts do I want to give voice to?

• how should i present my data?

• positivism = belief in objectivity → radical social constructionism = belief in subjectivity