1 Methods of Knowing

Take a minute to ponder some of what you know and how you acquired that knowledge. Perhaps you know that you should make your bed in the morning because your mother or father told you this is what you should do. Perhaps you know that swans are white because all of the swans you have seen are white. Perhaps you know that your friend is lying to you because she is acting strange and won’t look you in the eye. But should we trust knowledge from these sources? The methods of acquiring knowledge can be broken down into five categories, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Intuition

The first method of knowing is intuition. When we use our intuition, we are relying on our guts, our emotions, and/or our instincts to guide us. Rather than examining facts or using rational thought, intuition involves believing what feels true. The problem with relying on intuition is that our intuitions can be wrong because they are driven by cognitive and motivational biases rather than logical reasoning or scientific evidence. While the strange behavior of your friend may lead you to think s/he is lying to you, it may just be that s/he is preoccupied with some other issue that is irrelevant to you. However, weighing alternatives and thinking of all the different possibilities can be paralyzing for some people, and sometimes decisions based on intuition are actually superior to those based on analysis (people interested in this idea should read Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink)^[1]. Gladwell argues that intuition is also shaped by experience, expertise, and patterns, not just instinct, and therefore can be a powerful tool for decision making. Conversely, while snap judgments can be highly effective, they are also vulnerable to bias, stereotypes, and hidden assumptions. Overall, it is important to think about how decisions are made, respecting intuition and also recognizing its limits, especially in contexts involving power, inequality, and bias.

Authority

Perhaps one of the most common methods of acquiring knowledge is through authority. This method involves accepting new ideas because some authority figure states that they are true. These authorities include parents, the media, doctors, priests and other religious authorities, the government, and professors. While in an ideal world we should be able to trust authority figures, history has taught us otherwise, and many instances of atrocities against humanity are a consequence of people unquestioningly following authority (e.g., Salem Witch Trials, Nazi War Crimes). On a more benign level, while your parents may have told you that you should make your bed in the morning and children know they need to listen to their parents, making your bed provides the warm, damp environment in which mites thrive. Keeping the sheets open provides a less hospitable environment for mites. These examples illustrate that the problem with using authority to obtain knowledge is that they may be wrong, they may just be using their intuition to arrive at their conclusions, and they may have their own reasons to mislead you. Nevertheless, much of the information we acquire is through authority because we don’t have time to question and independently research every piece of knowledge we learn through authority. But we can learn to evaluate the credentials of authority figures, to evaluate the methods they used to arrive at their conclusions, and evaluate whether they have any reasons to mislead us.

Rationalism

Rationalism involves using logic and reasoning to acquire new knowledge. Using this method, premises are stated and logical rules are followed to arrive at sound conclusions. For instance, if I am given the premise that all swans are white and the premise that this is a swan, then I can come to the rational conclusion that this swan is white without actually seeing the swan. The problem with this method is that if the premises are wrong or there is an error in logic, then the conclusion will not be valid. For instance, the premise that all swans are white is incorrect; there are black swans in Australia. Also, unless formally trained in the rules of logic, it is easy to make an error. For example, let’s say a student observes that in their survey, most participants who exercise regularly report good mental health. The student concludes that exercise causes good mental health. However, without formal training in logic, the student has made an error by confusing correlation with causation. Other factors—such as social support or income—may influence both exercise and mental health. This example illustrates how, without training in logical reasoning, researchers can draw incorrect conclusions even when using real data. Nevertheless, if the premises are correct and logical rules are followed appropriately, then this is a sound means of acquiring knowledge.

Empiricism

Empiricism involves acquiring knowledge through observation and experience. Once again, many of you may have believed that all swans are white because you have only ever seen white swans. For centuries, people believed the world was flat because it appeared to be flat. These examples and the many visual illusions that trick our senses illustrate the problems with relying on empiricism alone to derive knowledge. We are limited in what we can experience and observe, and our senses can deceive us. Moreover, our prior experiences can alter the way we perceive events. Nevertheless, empiricism is at the heart of the scientific method. Science relies on observations. But not just any observations, science relies on structured observations, which are known as systematic empiricism.

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is a process of systematically collecting and evaluating evidence to test ideas and answer questions. While scientists may use intuition, authority, rationalism, and empiricism to generate new ideas, they don’t stop there. Scientists go a step further by using systematic empiricism to make careful observations under various controlled conditions in order to test their ideas, and they use rationalism to arrive at valid conclusions. Systematic empiricism builds on empiricism by emphasizing that observations must be collected using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures. Rather than relying on causal or informal observation, systematic empiricism uses clearly defined methods, careful measurement, and explicit rules for gathering and analyzing data. While the scientific method is the most likely of all of the methods to produce valid knowledge, like all methods of acquiring knowledge, it also has its drawbacks. One major problem is that it is not always feasible to use the scientific method; this method can require considerable time and resources. Another problem with the scientific method is that it cannot be used to answer all questions. As described in the following section, the scientific method can only be used to address empirical questions. This book and your research methods course are designed to provide you with an in-depth examination of how psychologists use the scientific method to advance our understanding of human behavior and the mind.

Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology in Research 

Before a researcher can embark on a scientific inquiry or identify their research methods, they should first carefully consider the lenses that are shaping their view of the world around them.  This includes a consideration of ontology, epistemology, and axiology in research.

Video 1.1. Ontology epistemology methodology and methods | ontology and epistemology in research examples by Dr. Dee 

Ontology

Ontology refers to the assumptions one makes about what is real. Generally, when conducting research in psychology, researchers will either take on an ontology based in realism or relativism.

Realism refers to the idea that there is an objective reality separate from human perception. Think back to when you learned about the gravitational force or the mitochondria of a cell. You were learning about the theories and observations that make up our understanding of the physical world.  We assume that gravity is real and that the mitochondria of a cell are real.  With a powerful microscope, mitochondria are easy to spot and observe, and we can theorize about their function in a cell.  The gravitational force is invisible, but clearly apparent from observable facts, like watching an apple fall.  The theories about gravity have changed over the years, and those improvements in theory were made when existing theories fell short in explaining observations. If we weren’t able to perceive mitochondria or gravity, they would still be there, doing their thing, because they exist independent of our observation of them.

By contrast, relativism refers to the belief that social concepts do not have an existence apart from human thought. Said differently, relativism asserts that knowledge and truth are socially and culturally situated, meaning that what is considered true, real, or valid, depends on historical, cultural, and social context rather than universal standards. Thus, the emphasis is on examining how people understand the world around them. Unlike realists who seek a single, universal truth, the relativist sees a collection of truths that are created and shared within a social and cultural environment. For example, in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) classification of mental health disorders, there is a list of culture-bound syndromes that only appear in certain cultures. For example, susto describes a unique cluster of symptoms experienced by people in Latin American cultures after a traumatic event that focus on the body. Indeed, many of these syndromes do not fit within a Western conceptualization of mental health because Western culture differentiates less between the mind and body. To a Western scientist, susto may seem less real than PTSD. To someone from Latin America, their symptoms may not fit neatly into the PTSD framework developed within Western society. A realist would seek to identify which is objective “real”: susto or PTSD. But a relativist would acknowledge that the truth of these disorders is rooted in the cultural context in which it exists.

Epistemology

Epistemology refers to one’s beliefs about how we generate knowledge, or how we come to know what is real or true, including both objective and subjective truths. Objective truths are claims about reality that are considered independent of individual beliefs, feelings, or perspectives. They are expected to be verifiable through shared standards, evidence, or observation, and to hold regardless of who observes them. Subjective truths are truths that are based on personal experiences, interpretations, meanings, or feelings. They depend on individuals’ perspectives and social contexts and may vary across people or groups.

Generally, scientists approaching research with an objective ontology and epistemology will use quantitative methods designed to draw unbiased data-driven conclusions to arrive at scientific truth. However, given a relativistic ontology, a subjectivist epistemology is also important to consider. Subjective truths do not exist independent of human observation because they are the product of the human mind. We negotiate what is true in the social world through language, arriving at a consensus and engaging in debate. Epistemologically, a scientist seeking subjective truth assumes that truth lies in what people say—in their words. A scientist uses qualitative methods to analyze words or other media to understand their meaning and generate knowledge of what is subjectively true.

Axiology

Axiology refers to how a scientist believes their own values impact the ways in which they conduct research. A positivist approach to conducting science argues that research should be value-free and guided solely by objective truth (see Research Paradigms chapter for more information on this). However, this approach is often critiqued for leading to blind spots in one’s research, and many have suggested that research can never be truly value-free. Thus, axiology invites researchers to reflect on how their pre-held beliefs may influence every part of the scientific process, from the research questions we may generate, to how we conduct a study, to the conclusions we are able to draw. As Dr. Lynette Pretorius writes, “This reflection is essential for maintaining integrity and transparency in research, as it highlights the ways in which personal and cultural values influence the research process, from the formulation of questions to the dissemination of results.”^[2]

Accounting for Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology in Research Methodologies

In their seminal text, Indigenous Statistics, Indigenous researchers Walter and Anderson (2016)^[3] use the concepts epistemology, ontology, and axiology to demonstrate how quantitative methodologies and statistics often reflect the cultural framework or dominant ideology of the context (e.g., country) in which they are produced without realizing it. That is to say, researchers and statisticians collect, analyze, and interpret data using specific ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions that they either do not explicitly name or are not aware of. Walter and Anderson assert that this results in methodologies that create “documentation of difference, deficit, and dysfunction” (p. 10) in the research generated about marginalized peoples or communities because of the inherent biases present in the underlying assumptions of all research endeavors.

In the figure above, Walter and Anderson (2016) summarize how they define methodology, accounting for how a researcher’s social position, such as their culture, race, gender, or socioeconomic background, and in turn their ontology, epistemology, and axiology, informs or creates their research standpoint. They go on to define methodology as made up of three parts that are all linked: standpoint, theoretical frame, and methods. Our standpoint consists of one’s social position and underlying beliefs about ourselves and what constitutes knowledge, i.e., our ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions. By doing this, the underlying assumptions that inform our research methodology choices are made explicit, and therefore our potential biases are also made visible.