What is it?

Epistemology, derived from the ancient Greek word “epistème” (knowledge), constitutes the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and origin of knowledge. The questions central to epistemology are how we arrive at (reliable) knowledge, and what counts as valid knowledge. Epistemology provides a theoretical framework by which researchers can define their approach to knowledge construction.

A traditional age-old debate in epistemology is whether we arrive at reliable knowledge through the use of our reason (rationalism) or through observation (empiricism). In the current psychological climate, empiricism is clearly dominant: both researchers and clinicians consider it very important that we collect data before we draw conclusions, and thus put observation at the center, rather than relying entirely on our minds (our reason). In both qualitative and quantitative research, data collection is central, and the epistemological assumption is that reliable knowledge generation depends on good data collection.

However, there are also differences between the epistemological approaches of qualitative and quantitative research traditions. Within qualitative research, the focus is often on understanding and interpreting subjective perspectives within a particular context, while in quantitative research the emphasis is on generalizing findings based on numerical data. So how knowledge is gained and what conclusions are drawn from it differs between different methods, and essentially that is an epistemological issue.

As a researcher, it is advisable to consider in advance which epistemology fits your beliefs and the purpose of the research. This helps determine the research method and how to interpret the research results.

How does it work?

Different epistemological frameworks exist. Within qualitative research, a social constructionist epistemology is often espoused. Social constructionism holds that reality is actively shaped by individuals. Thus, reality does not exist independently of man, but rather is actively shaped by man. Similarly, there is not one objective reality, but there are all kinds of realities, as it were. Qualitative research is often used to understand and interpret individual perspectives in context, which is appropriate within the assumptions of social constructionism.

The antithesis of social constructionism is positivism, which assumes that reliable knowledge consists of objective observations and measurable facts. Central to positivism is the scientific method, in which hypotheses are drawn up, experiments are conducted and the hypotheses are then tested statistically. Positivism turns away from any kind of metaphysical or speculative explanations, since they are not based on observation. Unlike social constructionism that emphasizes a socially constructed reality, positivism says there is one objective reality. The majority of quantitative research in psychology relies (consciously or unconsciously) on a positivist epistemology; the goal is to arrive at objectively verifiable knowledge.

Formulated in this way, qualitative and quantitative research are diametrically opposed. The underlying assumptions about how knowledge is gained and what the purpose of research is are so different that they seem incompatible (more on that under the heading Issues). While it is indeed true that social constructionism content fits very well with the subjectivist and context-bound nature of qualitative research, as a qualitative researcher one is not necessarily attached to this epistemology. It is also possible to adopt other epistemologies within qualitative research. Some qualitative methods fit very well with a constructionist epistemology (such as narrative analysis), while other methods are agnostic toward epistemology (such as thematic analysis) and yet other methods sometimes lean toward positivism (such as grounded theory).

Points of interest

Adopting a particular epistemology may go along with the idea that qualitative and quantitative methods are incompatible. Whereas social constructionism leans on the idea of the experience of the individual and the idea that there is no such thing as one underlying truth, positivism, on the contrary, leans on the idea that there is one truth that we can describe using scientific theories. According to this reasoning, the goals and assumptions of qualitative and quantitative methods are so fundamentally different that they cannot be combined in one study (Marecek, 2003). Mixed methods, research methods that use both quantitative and qualitative elements are not sustainable according to this viewpoint: qualitative and quantitative research are based on different assumptions and lead to such different types of knowledge that they cannot be combined.

Yet for many, there seem to be many advantages to being able to practice mixed methods. One epistemological framework within which it does seem possible to combine aspects of qualitative and quantitative methods is pragmatism. Pragmatism forms a bridge, as it were, between social constructionism on the one hand, and positivism on the other. Pragmatism holds that the truth of an idea lies in its practical consequences and usability. Researchers who adhere to this framework focus more on what is the most effective approach based on the research question and context. So pragmatism offers much flexibility: instead of thinking in opposites, pragmatism offers the possibility of using everything that both qualitative and quantitative traditions have to offer, as long as it is relevant to answering the research question. Pragmatism thus also encourages scientists to adapt their methods to the research question, rather than sticking to a particular method because they have a particular affinity for it (something also known as
methodolatry
is called methodolatry).