EPISTEMOLOGY VS ONTOLOGY

Many years ago, when still a child, I read a book whose name I have long since forgotten.
In it was written the following: The power of the pack is the wolf, and the power of the
wolf is the pack. This was a striking statement, and one which exercised an immense
influence on how I perceived both the world and its people. Now, decades later, being
confronted with issues of knowledge, existence and logic, the quote came back to me as
almost an epistemology of ontology - one that explains the world in which I have lived
and survived for so many interesting years. But, perhaps I am a little too hasty in my
employment of those terms right now. Just what is the difference between epistemology
and ontology? And why are these concepts important?

Epistemology is the study of knowing; essentially it is the study of what knowledge is

and how it is possible. It consists of ideas about the natural world and focuses on how we
can (and ought) to obtain knowledge, and how we can (and ought) to reason: the forms
into which our models are cast, and their relationships to the world (i.e. what we are
trying to model/know about).

Ontology, on the other hand, is more concerned about the natural world how it came to
be rather than an analysis of what is. In the power of the pack, the pack of wolves would
be the natural given one can say it is where it all begins, or, its ontology. The fact that
the wolves gain their power from the strength of the individuals in the pack is the
epistemology for the nature of the pack. Some analysis has gone in to the nature of the
pack and why it forms a strong unit.

In epistemology we strive to generate truthful (valid or plausible) descriptions and

explanations of the world. This said, the world need not incorporate the earths entirety
if one were to study the habits and activities of a pack of wolves in a particular area,
that would become the world of study. This would usually be termed the scope or
target of our research. Thinking and theorising about society in our world is what we call
our epistemology. When studying the pack of wolves, one is required to think about what

2
one sees, make conclusions (theorise) about them and ultimately, based on ones thinking
and theorising, explain what is seen. Concluding that the power of the pack is the wolf
and the power of the wolf is the pack, is a good example of this kind of thinking,
theorising and explaining. The pack of wolves is the basis of the study. It is visible as a
society under study, and is therefore ones ontology.

Ontology is concerned with how you, as the observer of a phenomenon, may know. It is
not concerned with what you may know thereby. It implies a study of existence based on
the assumption of its absolute and metaphysical meaning, and not on its cognitive
meaning. Epistemology, on the other hand, seeks to understand the origin, processes and
limitations of observation. These include operations such as drawing distinctions,
establishing relations, and the creation of constructs. In addition, it includes all
consequences of knowledge resulting from communication between observer and
observed, within a community of observers who may, in addition, observe each other.
Ontology asks, what is?, or what can we know?, where epistemology asks how do
we come to know?.

At this stage you would probably have noticed that ontology precedes epistemology
you need to identify a world or target for your study (ontology) before you can acquire
any further information from your target (epistemology).

At this point, I trust that it is clear that epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It
includes the methods, validity and scope of knowledge that we employ in our research. It
is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Epistemology
implies the provision of evidence for your conclusions how will we know that what you
conclude from your research is the truth and not just an opinion, perhaps even an
unfounded one? In quantitative research one would normally use statistical evidence to
support our notions, but in qualitative research it is not always as easy. There are,
nevertheless, many ways in which you can support the validity of your conclusions and
findings. Methods such as triangulation, authentication of target groups and referrals to
similar research, for example, may be used to support your inferences.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

Ontology is a branch of metaphysics 1 that deals with the nature of being which does not
require much evidence for validity one can normally see it. We could say that ontology
is the science of being, whereas epistemology is the science of the methods or grounds
of knowledge. Ontology thus focuses on what there is. In order to understand it, we need
to understand and agree upon the notion of existence. A person who was born and has
lived in a jungle, completely cut off from the modern world will know trees, the animals
that live in the jungle, and so forth. We can say that his ontology is limited to what he has
experienced and seen in the jungle. Things like cell phones and computers will not be
included in his ontology.

Epistemology goes one step further. Throughout the history of qualitative research,
investigators have always defined their work in terms of hopes and values, religious faith,
and occupational and professional ideologies. Qualitative research has always been
judged on the standard of whatever the work communicates, or on how we conceptualise
our reality and the world around us. Epistemology defines these standards of evaluation.
Questions of representation, the forms of theories/models, the kinds of evidence that are
or can be brought to bear on these models, and especially the relationships between all
these elements, are all central to epistemology. It is therefore the general theory of
cognition that focuses on the questions:

How do humans recognise, mentally, what really exists?

What are the limits of such recognition/cognition?

Epistemology is mostly linked to a modernist approach to research, whereas ontology is

said to belong with a postmodernistic approach. I have my doubts whether one should
separate the two based on such an oversimplification, because modernism and
postmodernism cannot be separated so easily. In addition, research may also not always
be so purist as to focus on either one or the other. From the following diagram on
generic 2 qualitative research activities you will notice that both ontology and

1
2

Metaphysics = the science that investigates ultimate reality.

Generic activities that will be present in (almost) all qualitative research projects.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

4
epistemology occupy a position, with ontology defining the research framework, and
epistemology determining the set of research questions:

Theory
Research framework
Ontology

Epistemology

Set of questions

Method

Methodology

The way in which the

set of questions is
examined

The net that contains the

researchers
epistemological,
ontological and
methodological premises
is called the premise,
paradigm or interpretive
framework, a basic set of
beliefs that guides action.

Analysis

Figure 1: Generic qualitative research activities.

We can simplify the qualitative research activities models above by focusing on three
main and interrelated activities, namely ontology, epistemology and methodology.
Together, ontology, epistemology and methodology form an all-encompassing system of
interrelated practice and thinking that defines for researchers the nature of their enquiry.
We call this our research premise, paradigm or interpretive framework. Ontology
specifies the nature of reality that is to be studied, and what can be known about it.
Epistemology specifies the nature of the relationship between the researcher (knower)
and what can be known. Methodology specifies how the researcher may go about
practically studying whatever he or she believes can be known.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

5
This can be illustrated in terms of positivist, interpretive and constructionist paradigms as
follows (TerrBlanche and Durrheim, 1999: 6):
Ontology
Positivist

Epistemology

Methodology

Stable, external

Objective

Experimental

reality

Detached

Quantitative

Hypothesis

Law-like

observer

testing
Interpretive

Internal reality of

Empathetic

Interactional

subjective

Observer

Interpretive

Qualitative

Deconstruction

Textual

experience
Constructionist

Socially

intersubjectivity
Suspicious

constructed reality Political

Discourse

Observer
constructing
versions

analysis

Discourse
analysis

The three dimensions of paradigms shown in the table above represent different
approaches to research. If the researcher believes that what is to be studied consists of a
stable and unchanging external reality (e.g. economic laws, cognitive mechanisms, the
law of gravity for example), then he can adopt an objective and detached epistemological
stance towards that reality, and can employ a methodology that relies on control and
manipulation of reality. The aim of such research would be to provide an accurate
description of the laws and mechanisms that operate in social life. You may recognise
this as a positivist 3 approach. If, on the other hand, the researcher believes that the reality
to be studied consists of an intersubjective and interactional epistemological stance
toward that reality, he will probably use methodologies (such as interviewing or
participant observation) that rely on a subjective relationship between researcher and

Positivism employs the language of objectivity, distance, and control because they are believed to be the
keys to the conduct of real social science.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

6
subject. This is characteristic of the interpretive 4 approach, which aims to explain the
subjective reasons and meanings that lie behind social action. Finally, if the researcher
believes that reality consists of a fluid and variable set of social constructs, he may adopt
a suspicious and politicised epistemological stance, and employ methodologies that allow
the researcher to deconstruct versions of reality. This is characteristic of constructionist 5
research, which aims to show how versions of the social world are produced in discourse,
and how these constructions of reality make some actions possible, and others
unthinkable (TerrBlanche and Durrheim, 1999: 6). The difference between positivism,
interpretive research and social constructionism can be illustrated as follows:

Positivism/realism.

Interpretive
research/impressionism.

Social
constructionism/cubism.

Artwork by Evette Nel-Fry.

Interpretive research focuses on what is being accomplished, under what conditions, and out of what
resources. It relies on first-hand accounts, tries to describe what it sees in rich detail and presents its
findings in engaging and sometimes evocative language.
5
Constructionism is the research approach that seeks to analyse how signs and images have powers to
create particular representations of people and objects.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

7
You should by now have a good idea of what the difference between epistemology and
ontology is. In summary:
Epistemology is a set of questions based on a framework; ontology is the
framework.
Epistemology refers to the how of research. Ontology refers to the what of
research.
Perhaps you will find the questions in the following table useful in discriminating
between epistemology and ontology (TerrBlanche and Durrheim, 1999: 443):

EPISTEMOLOGY

ONTOLOGY

How to interpret the world?

Which world is this?

Our place in the world?

What is to be done in it?

What is there to know?

Which of my selves is to do it?

Who knows it?

What is a world?

How do you know?

What kinds of worlds are there?

How sure are they?

How are they constituted?

How is knowledge transmitted?

How do they differ?

What are the limits of the

What happens when worlds are in

knowable? (4)

confrontation?
o

What happens when boundaries are

violated?

Text versus world?

We can now move on to some more intricate questions.

An important concept that you will probably require in your research is the issue of
critical epistemology. Critical epistemology is an understanding of the relationship
between power and thought, and power and truth claims. You should uphold the
epistemological principles that apply to all researchers, but here you need to be really
careful it is easy to twist your arguments to fit your particular preferences by describing
them in terms of an unfounded epistemology. Writers and researchers often put on a

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

8
particular political or social hat, with the intention of gaining support from a particular
group, rather than striving for the real truth, for scientific validity. For example, through
the years weve seen numerous researchers adopting an epistemology justifying
apartheid when it was still policy in South Africa (and when some first world
governments silently supported or at least tolerated the policy). Unfortunately we have
seen and are currently seeing as many researchers who adopt the opposite stance based on
as little scientific truth as the former. You will only truly make a positive epistemological
contribution to science if you are objective and honest in your interpretation and analysis
of information. This brings us to what Babbie and Mouton (2004) call the epistemic
imperative.

In the world of science our aim is to generate truthful (valid/plausible) descriptions and
explanations of the world. This is called the epistemic intent of science. Epistemic is
derived from episteme, the Greek word for truthful knowledge (Babbie and Mouton,
2004: 8). We use truthful as a synonym for valid or close approximation of the
truth. We accept knowledge to be truthful when we have sufficient reason to believe
that it is an accurate representation or explanation of some phenomenon in the world. To
put it less philosophically, scientists accept claims to be truthful or valid if there is
enough evidence to support such claims. Such evidence usually accumulates over time.
Claims have to withstand repeated testing under various conditions in order to be
accepted as valid or, at least, plausible. There is no such thing as instant verification of
an hypotheses or theory. Even when the scientific community accepts certain points of
view, hypotheses or theories as valid and plausible, this acceptance is based on the best
available evidence at a given point of time. It is always possible that new empirical
evidence might come to the fore in the future which would force scientists to revise their
opinions and change their theories.

This means that the commitment to truth does not equate with the search for certainty
or infallible knowledge, or for truths that hold absolutely without concern for time and
space. The notions of certainty and infallibility suggest that we can never be wrong.
If we are to accept a particular point of view as certain or infallible we are in fact

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

9
saying that no amount of new evidence can ever lead us to change our beliefs. Such a
view is not only obviously false, but clearly makes a mockery of scientific enterprise. The
commitment to true and valid knowledge is, therefore, not a search for infallible and
absolute knowledge.

In contrast to pre-scientific forms of knowledge, the epistemic imperative demands that

scientists commit themselves unconditionally to the pursuit of the most truthful claims
about the world. This has at least three implications:
1.

The idea of an imperative implies that a type of moral contract has been entered
into. It is neither optional nor negotiable. This contract is intrinsic to scientific
inquiry. Being a member of the global science community assumes that you have
made this commitment. When you embark on a scientific project, or undertake
any scientific enquiry, you tacitly agree to the epistemic imperative - to the search
for truth. But the epistemic imperative is not merely an ideal or regulative
principle. It has real consequences. This is evident in the way that the scientific
community deals with any attempt to suspend or violate the imperative.

2.

The epistemic imperative is a commitment to an ideal. Its goal is to generate

results and findings which are as valid or truthful as possible. The fact that it is
first and foremost an ideal, means that it might not always be attained in practice.
Methodological problems and practical constraints (such as lack of resources)
may lead to the ideal not being fully attained. We usually have to suffice with
results that are, at best, approximations to the truth.

3.

The meaning that we attach to the concept truth presupposes a loose, somewhat
metaphorical relationship between our scientific proposition and the world.
Contrary to the classical notion, according to which truth means the literal
correspondence of our statements with reality, we accept that this relationship is a
much more complex one. The notion of fit, or even modelling is a more
appropriate term for two reasons: Firstly, it suggests that a statement or set of
statements can be more or less true. The notion of fit is not an absolute one, but
allows for degrees (from a loose fit to a good fit). Secondly, the term fit can
refer to both the relationship between our statements and the world (the traditional

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

10
notions of representation or correspondence), as well as to the relationships
between our statements. In the latters case, we would use the term coherence.
This means that fit is used to refer to both empirical and conceptual fits. When
our conceptual system exhibits a high degree of internal coherence, we could also
speak of the concepts as fitting well (Babbie and Mouton, 2004: 8-9).

So we now know that we should strive towards the truth or validity in our research. Let
us return to the concept of critical epistemology. The example of a Eurocentric versus an
African approach to research belongs to what is called critical race theory. This theory
enacts an ethnic epistemology, arguing that ways of knowing and being are shaped by the
individuals standpoint or position in the world. This standpoint undoes the cultural,
ethnical, and epistemological logic (and racism) of the Eurocentric paradigm. It is often
advisable to keep clear of ethnicity, unless ethnicity forms a part of or is the purpose of
your research. The important point is that you avoid using biased arguments to gain
political or economic power.

The quality of your research will be judged according to the criteria of validity and
authenticity. Validity and authenticity are prerequisites for understanding. It is in this that
epistemology and ethics are brought together. It is also a meeting point between
epistemology and ontology, because the way in which we know (ontology) is tied up with
what we know (epistemology).

Ontological and educative authenticity on the other hand, were designated as criteria for
determining a raised level of awareness; in the first instance, by individual research
participants and, in the second, by individuals who surround them or with whom they
come into contact for some social or organisational purpose. Is it evident that the validity
of your epistemological approach starts with ontology? You will find that it is rather
difficult to separate epistemology from ontology, since they actually form a unified
system. Fortunately, it is not always necessary to separate the two. It is, however, very
important that you dont confuse them. As a matter of routine, it helps to mention
ontology first, and then epistemology, since it enables you to base your study on

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

11
something (your target group, world or society) before you do any thinking and
theorising.

The reason we need not always separate ontology and epistemology is that they are
highly interdependent. Choice of representation (i.e., the way in which models must be
articulable) does, in fact, have real implications for what aspects of the world receive the
most attention what the model handles well, and what gets minimised or left out. And,
in the other direction, models of what there is (ontology) have implications for what can
be known and how it can be known (epistemology). There is thus a great deal of
interdependence between ontology and epistemology, and it is something of a truism,
philosophically, that whenever things get very interesting, there are strong implications
for both.

Epistemology is not just a way of knowing. It is also a system of knowing with both an
internal logic (contextualising information gathered to your research purpose) and an
external validity (ensuring that findings are in line with the general environment and that
they will be acceptable to external verifiers, experts and other readers). Epistemology is
intimately linked to world-view. People with a European frame of reference will not have
the same outlook on the world around us as people with an African frame of reference.
Ladson-Billings (Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. 2000: 258), avers that a European will
adopt the premise that the individual mind is the source of knowledge and existence. In
contrast, an African person believes in Ubuntu (I am because we are), and so the source
of knowledge and existence is to be found in the community and not the individual. The
validity of Ubuntu, however, is put into question by the current spate of crime, including
fraud, bribery and misuse of public funds by government officials and social leaders. This
stands in stark contrast to the notion that people with an African frame of mind regard the
interest of the community above their personal interests. The fact remains however; there
is probably a difference between the European and African outlooks. This is important if
we are to understand research questions in an African context. It is also perhaps one of
the main reasons it is unlikely that Eurocentric solutions will be successfully applied to
an African environment. Thus, the conditions under which people live and learn, shape

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

12
both their knowledge and their world-views. The process of developing a world-view that
differs from the dominant world-view requires active intellectual work on the part of the
knower. This is because schools, societies, and the structure and production of knowledge
are all designed to create individuals who internalise the dominant world-view,
knowledge production and acquisition processes. The hegemony of the dominant
paradigm makes it more than just another way to view the world it claims to be the only
legitimate way to view the world. So the African epistemology stands in stark contrast to,
amongst others, the Eurocentric epistemology for example.

There are three other types of epistemology that you should take notice of:

Interpretive epistemology the knower and known interact and shape one
another.

Subjectivist epistemology the knower and respondent co-create understandings).

A sacred, existential epistemology places us in a non-competitive, nonhierarchical relationship to the earth, and to the larger world. This sacred
epistemology stresses the values of empowerment, sacred governance, care,
solidarity, love, community, covenants, morally involved observers, and civic
transformation.

REFERENCES

1.

Babbie, E. and Mouton, J. 2004. Fourth edition. The practice of Social

Research. Oxford University Press: New York.

2.

Clarke, E. 2005. Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern

Turn. Sage Publications: London.

3.

TerrBlanche, M. & Durrheim, K., 1999. Research in Practice. Applied

Methods for the Social Science. University of Cape Town Press: Cape Town.

4.

http://www.seanet.com/~macki/chace/academic/pomo1.html.

5.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/EPISTEMOLOG.html.

6.

http://home.mira.net/~deller/ethicalpolitics/seminars/neville.htm.

7.

http://gemusehaken.org/?p=93.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007

13
8.

http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/Ont-know.htm.

9.

http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg07392.html.

10.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second
edition. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.

Article by Dr J.P. Nel, D. Com

Mentornet 2007