The Philosophy of Science

Hello Qualitative Mind,

I’ll start today’s blog post with a question: What is your understanding of the philosophy of science?

In 2017 I was working with my mentor, Dr. Maria Mayan, on the second edition of her book and, for the first time, I read a paper about the philosophy of science. At that point I was a third-year PhD candidate, had taken all my graduate-level courses, had passed my candidacy exam, and yet I had never read or written about the philosophy of science. When I think about that, I can understand the roots of many issues (e.g., disparities, inequalities, uneven distribution of resources, etc.) we face in science, and why some don’t believe qualitative research is “science.”

If the philosophy of science is new to you, this blog post is a start but only that…a superficial start. It’s possible you’ve already discussed elements of the philosophy of science but, perhaps, without naming them as such.

In a special issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology entitled Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: A Primer on Research Paradigms and Philosophy of Science, Ponterotto (2005) defined philosophy of science as:

“Philosophy of science refers to the conceptual roots undergirding the quest for knowledge. (p. 127)”

We can’t talk about a quest for knowledge without discussing the very nature of the world and being in the world, and how we can learn/know about it. This creates a string of beliefs and assumptions linked to ontology/epistemology/axiology/methodology that are also incorporated into the philosophy of science.

As I said, this blog post will hardly scratch the surface of the philosophy of science…maybe because I feel too nervous or unprepared to go deep into the topic, maybe because a blog post is meant to plant a seed without giving you all the answers. I’m not completely sure. What I do know is that I’d like you not to go any further in your career without understanding your own beliefs and assumptions about science.

In his last book The Lively Science, Michael Agar (2013, p. 3) made an argument that long ago the behavioural and social sciences “adopted the wrong epistemology” (i.e., how we judge knowledge claims to be true). Agar argued that research with or on humans in their social world by other humans is not “the traditional science like the one created by Galileo and Newton” as we’re trying to learn “how people make it through the day.”

When we don’t critically and reflexively think about our beliefs and assumptions about the philosophy of science, we may try to adopt the rules of the natural sciences and of “the early physics and chemistry lab” and apply them to studying people. This often doesn’t work and leads to some feeble conclusions.

I encourage you to spend some time dwelling on your philosophy of science, and that of those who work alongside you. By doing that, you’ll enter a tricky but essential journey into the underlying beliefs and assumptions linked to your ontology/epistemology/axiology/methodology.

I can’t promise the journey will be easy or pleasant but the clarity it will bring is worthwhile.

Talk soon,

Maira

{P.S.: Another suggested reference on the topic: DeForge, R.; Shaw, J. Back- and fore-grounding ontology: exploring the linkages between critical realism, pragmatism, and methodologies in health & rehabilitation sciences. Nursing Inquiry. 2012; 19(1): 83-95.}