Epistemology: How Knowledge Is Created
Epistemology is where a research plan stops being a set of preferences and becomes an argument. The source's test is blunt: can you explain and justify the methodology and the methods you chose?
The two definitions the source gives
The supplied teaching material defines epistemology in three places and does not use the same words twice. The differences are not trivial, and each version pulls a write-up in a different direction.
EPISTEMOLOGY AS THE SUPPLIED SOURCE PUTS IT
| Where it appears | How epistemology is put |
|---|---|
| The five-element table | The theory of knowing; embedded in the theoretical perspective and thus in the methodology. |
| The three-term table | Relationship between researcher and topic being researched. |
| The prose on research philosophies | “Epistemology refers to the means by which knowledge is created. Knowledge is created in the research project through the use of research methodologies and methods.” |
All three statements appear in the same supplied teaching material.
The third statement, from the prose, is the one that turns the abstraction into something operational: knowledge is created in the research project through the use of research methodologies and methods. That sentence is what makes epistemology a design concern rather than a philosophical preface.
Knowledge is created through methodology and methods
- Philosophical framework
- Theoretical perspective
- Methodology
- Methods
- Data as evidence
- Justified knowledge claim
Note what is not in that chain. There is no step at which the volume of data compensates for a mismatch further back. A large, clean dataset gathered by a design that cannot answer the question produces a large, clean answer to a different question.
The justification test
The source is direct about what answering an epistemological question requires: the researcher must explain and justify the methodology and methods used in the research project. Your epistemological position is described as the philosophical underpinnings of research and research methodologies.
It also supplies the criteria that justification has to satisfy. Every step in the research project should be appropriate to the nature of the study, the aim of the study, the population of the study and the context of the study.
THE FOUR FIT CRITERIA THE SOURCE REQUIRES EVERY STEP TO MEET
| Fit criterion | The question it forces | What a weak answer sounds like |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the study | What kind of study is this — describing what is, explaining how or why, or evaluating against a benchmark — and does the design match that kind? | “It is a mixed-methods study.” That describes instruments, not the nature of the enquiry. |
| Aim of the study | What is this study for, and would the planned output actually serve that purpose? | An aim written as a topic. “To investigate stakeholder engagement” commits to nothing and can therefore fail nothing. |
| Population of the study | Who or what is being studied, and does your access to them support the claim you intend to make? | “Everyone who responded.” A sample of the willing, described as though it were a sample of the field. |
| Context of the study | Where is this situated, and does the philosophical framework of that organisation fit the design you have chosen? | A design lifted from a published study in another sector, with the difference in context left unexamined. |
The four criteria are the source's. The questions and the weak answers are our expansion of them.
The source adds a point practitioners tend to miss: every research project is situated within a particular philosophical framework, and that framework reflects the organisational context in which the research is undertaken. If your organisation only accepts numbers as evidence, an interpretive design is not thereby wrong — but the mismatch is now a risk you have to manage rather than one you can ignore.
The epistemological positions the source names
The material states that the epistemological positions generally considered are positivism, constructionism and interpretivism, and that other philosophical frameworks used in social science research include functionalism, symbolic interactionism, feminism, critical inquiry and postmodernism. It then supplies a short table of terminology, reproduced below as a signpost.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY, AS GIVEN IN THE SUPPLIED SOURCE
| Term | Source definition | Associated terms |
|---|---|---|
| Positivist | Hypotheses (suppositions, propositions) tested using objectively collected factual data; if successful leads to scientific laws. | Scientific method, logical empiricist, objectivist |
| Post-positivist | Hypotheses found to be consistent with data establishing probable facts or laws. | — |
| Constructivist | People construct their own views of reality and researcher seeks to discover this. | Social constructivism |
| Interpretive | People provide their own accounts or explanations of situations and behaviours. | Phenomenology, ethnography, phenomenography, symbolic interaction, intersubjectivity, subjectivist |
| Critical inquiry | Research is influenced by beliefs/values critical of the status quo in society. | Standpoint |
Definitions and associated terms reproduced from the supplied teaching source.
Each position has its own page, and the detail belongs there rather than here: positivism and post-positivism, constructionism and constructivism, interpretivism and phenomenology, critical inquiry and standpoint research, and the functionalist, feminist and postmodern frameworks the source names but does not develop.
Where epistemology stops and ontology starts
The two questions arrive together and are answered separately. Keeping them apart is what stops a methodology chapter from repeating itself.
Epistemological questions — this page
- How is knowledge about this thing created?
- What justifies the methodology and the methods I have chosen?
- What relationship do I have to what I am studying?
- What value do I ascribe to the knowledge this design can produce?
Ontological questions — the sibling page
- What kind of thing is the phenomenon I am studying?
- Does it exist independently of the accounts people give of it?
- What does my design do with two incompatible accounts of the same event?
The left-hand column is the subject of this page. The right-hand column is treated at ontology: assumptions about the nature of reality, which is worth reading first if you have not settled what you are studying.
Writing the epistemology paragraph
Five moves that make a defensible epistemology paragraph
Name the position, in the source's vocabulary where it fits
State which framework the study works within and define it from a work you can cite. If none of the named positions fits cleanly, say so and describe the position you are taking rather than forcing a label.
Say how knowledge will be created in this study
Not in general — in this study. Through which methodology, using which methods, producing what kind of evidence. This is the sentence that connects a philosophical claim to a work plan.
Show the fit against all four criteria
Nature, aim, population, context. One clause each is usually enough, and the absence of any one of them is the first thing a careful reader will notice.
State what the design cannot know
Every design forecloses something. Naming the limit yourself is stronger than having it named for you, and for a practitioner audience it is what makes the finding usable rather than oversold.
Note where your position and the organisation's differ
The source states that the philosophical framework of a research project reflects the organisational context in which it is undertaken. If you are running an interpretive study inside a numbers-only culture, write the mismatch down and say how you will handle it.
Worked example: one question, two epistemologies
A business has introduced a stage-gate process across its delivery portfolio and wants to know whether it is working. The question can be pursued from either of two positions, and the choice determines everything that follows — including what the answer will be capable of settling.
THE SAME BUSINESS QUESTION UNDER TWO EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITIONS
| Aspect | Under a positivist framing | Under an interpretive framing |
|---|---|---|
| What counts as knowledge | Facts established by testing propositions against objectively collected data. | The accounts people give of their own situations and behaviours. |
| The question as posed | Did delivery outcomes change after the gates were introduced, and by how much? | How is the gate process understood, used and worked around by the people subject to it? |
| Relationship to the topic | Detached. The researcher measures something treated as independent of the measuring. | Involved. The researcher elicits and interprets accounts, and that involvement is part of the design. |
| What the data has to be | Comparable measures across comparable packages, collected the same way each time. | Accounts rich enough to interpret, gathered where the practice actually happens. |
| How the design is justified | By showing the measure captures the outcome and the population supports the comparison. | By showing the question is about meaning and the design is capable of collecting meaning. |
| Claim available at the end | Whether the measured outcomes differ, and with what confidence. | How the process is experienced, and why it is used the way it is. |
| Claim not available | Why any difference occurred, or what the gates mean to those working under them. | How widespread any of the patterns are across the portfolio. |
Constructed for this page from the source's own definitions of the positivist and interpretive positions.
Notice that the third row uses the source's second definition of epistemology — the relationship between researcher and topic — and the first row uses its first. Both are doing useful work, which is the practical argument for keeping both definitions rather than choosing one.
Failure modes, and a check before you proceed
- Naming a position and never using it. The paragraph asserts interpretivism and the design is a closed-question survey analysed as counts.
- Justifying by precedent. “This approach is standard in our industry” explains why others did it, not why it answers your question.
- Describing the fieldwork instead of the position. A schedule of interviews is not an epistemology, however carefully it is set out.
- Skipping the population criterion. Access is the constraint most likely to break the claim, and it is the one most often left unwritten.
- Treating the epistemology section as front matter. If nothing later in the document depends on it, you have written a preface rather than an argument.
Six checks before you write the methodology chapter
- You can state how knowledge will be created in this specific study, in one sentence.
- You can justify the methodology by fit to the question, not by precedent or convenience.
- You have addressed all four criteria: nature, aim, population and context.
- You have said which of the source's two definitions of epistemology you are using, and where.
- You have named what the design cannot show, before anyone asks.
- Your position and your methodology would still agree if a reader checked them against each other line by line.
What to carry forward
- Epistemology is the means by which knowledge is created, and in a research project it is created through methodology and methods.
- The supplied source defines the word twice — theory of knowing, and relationship between researcher and topic. Use both deliberately rather than picking one by accident.
- Answering an epistemological question means explaining and justifying your methodology and methods, against the nature, aim, population and context of the study.
- The source names positivism, constructionism and interpretivism as the positions generally considered, and drifts between constructionism and constructivist in its own materials.
- The test of an epistemology section is whether the rest of the document depends on it.
Frequently asked questions
What does epistemology mean in a research project?
The supplied source gives two definitions: the theory of knowing, and the relationship between researcher and topic being researched. Its prose adds the operational version — epistemology refers to the means by which knowledge is created, and in a research project knowledge is created through the methodologies and methods used.
How do I answer an epistemological question in my write-up?
By explaining and justifying the methodology and methods you used. The source requires every step to be appropriate to the nature, aim, population and context of the study, so a defensible answer addresses all four rather than asserting a label and moving on.
Is epistemology the same as ontology?
No. Ontology concerns what the thing you are studying is; epistemology concerns how knowledge of it is created and what justifies your design. The source ties both to the theoretical perspective, and thus to the methodology, which is why they are usually discussed together and must be answered separately.
Which epistemological positions does the source name?
It states that the positions generally considered are positivism, constructionism and interpretivism, and names functionalism, symbolic interactionism, feminism, critical inquiry and postmodernism as other frameworks used in social science research. Its terminology table defines positivist, post-positivist, constructivist, interpretive and critical inquiry.
Should I write constructionism or constructivism?
The supplied source uses both and does not distinguish them, so this site does not invent a distinction either. Choose one, define it from a work you can cite, and use it consistently — the wider literature does not always treat the two as equivalent.
Does my organisation's culture affect my epistemology?
The source states that every research project is situated within a philosophical framework and that the framework reflects the organisational context in which the research is undertaken. A mismatch between your design and what your organisation accepts as evidence does not invalidate the design, but it is a risk you should name and manage.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: master's-level teaching notes and slides on research methods, including the five-element table, the three-term table, the prose on research philosophies and the table of epistemological terminology.
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing. Chapter 1, p. 50 — the methodological pyramid, which places the philosophical frameworks beneath methodology and methods.
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford. (Listed in the supplied source's reading list.)
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London. (Listed in the supplied source's reading list.)
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Draft an epistemology paragraph for my research question using the four fit criteria.
- Does my methodology match the epistemological position I have claimed?
- What can and cannot be claimed from a positivist design on my topic?
- Explain the difference between the two definitions of epistemology in the source.
- How should I handle a mismatch between my design and what my organisation accepts as evidence?