Introduction

In this essay, I will attempt to highlight various challenges to conducting research effectively.
I will also examine the nature of ontology and epistemology and elaborate on their
implications on research processes and outcomes. I aim to highlight two research methods:
document analysis and elite interviewing. I will seek to relate these two research methods to
their ontological positions. I will also subsequently relate them to various available
epistemological approaches. I will aim to highlight the common problems associated with
these two research methods. I will also address the issues associated with relying too
heavily on one research method, both from an epistemological perspective as well as a
broader ontological viewpoint. This paper is highly relevant to my eventual research
methodology, to conceptualise and prioritise important factors affecting my research
methodology. Theoretically, I understand that my ontological and epistemological
approaches impact my research decisions and must be considered.

Methodology Challenges

There are several challenges associated with research. One challenge is correctly identifying
a research topic (Gravetter and Forzano, 2018). It is also useful to consider the research
from the outset with regards to the potential it has for social impact to remain motivated
throughout the process (Patten and Newhart, 2017). It is therefore helpful to consider how
the research will add to work already available using appropriate theoretical frameworks
already in existence. Another factor is the amount of time available and what contacts could
contribute (Gravetter and Forzano, 2018). One danger is to pre-emptively choose a
qualitative or quantitative methodology that is ultimately inappropriate given the scope of
investigation. One related challenge might be deciding how to then deal with the data
collected (Patten and Newhart, 2018). Dr. Ronald Paige had more than 900-plus pages of
transcribed stories from the interviews he conducted for his PhD in Education (Walden,
2010). Paige realised that it was important to connect his research with existing research in
the topic to make sense of such a large amount of data. In the research study. Dr.
Christopher Plum observed Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings for his PhD
research in Education. At these meetings, a plan is developed to help students with
disabilities. These meetings required permission from the parents, student, school
psychologists and school district. Research that is potentially controversial or sensitive may
therefore need perseverance in relationship-building to be successful.

Ontological and Epistemological Implications of Research

An overview of these terms is useful to further understand their implications on research.

Ontology is most often defined as the nature of reality (Moon and Blackman, 2014). It is
concerned with the overall nature of existence of a particular entity. Epistemology is the
external relationship between researcher and that reality or how that reality is known.
Epistemology is focused on the ways in which we establish knowledge and how we learn
about reality (Moon and Blackman, 2014). Ontological approaches include positivism and
interpretivism (Dieronitou, 2014) A positivist ontology regards the world as external with one
observable reality regardless of perspective or belief. An interpretivist ontology however
believes that multiple and relative realities are possible. A positivist epistemology is
interested in obtaining secure knowledge governed by stated hypotheses and theories.
Knowledge acquired by an interpretivist ontology is socially constructed rather than
objectively determined. Such research seeks to understand a specific context. Positivist
methodology often concentrates on description and explanation using rational, logical
approaches that often involve quantifiable methods (Brannen, 2017). Interpretivist
methodology focuses instead on understanding and interpretation (Brannen, 2017). Feeling
and reason can govern such approaches and primarily non-quantitative methods are

1
employed. According to this perspective, quantitative positivists believe in the principles of
inherency and verifiability, which is distinct from qualitative relativists who pose that all reality
is socially constructed or based on the researchers own pre-determined beliefs (Wesley,
2014).

Document Analysis

With regards to a positivist ontological approach to document analysis, the main methods
include fact confirmation, content analysis and historicism (Fellows and Liu, 2015). This
approach seeks supposed factual evidence to support or reject hypotheses. One issue with
examining only the literal meaning of a document is that this may not reveal its true
significance (Fellows and Liu, 2015). A phenomenological interpretative epistemology
therefore seeks to understand both the surface meaning and any underlying inferences of
the document. This may include using further interpretative analysis, hermeneutics, and
aesthetics (Finlay, 2012). A critical social approach goes further in that it attempts to
understand how the document informs social, historical, and political processes (Finlay,
2012). Document analysis is perhaps more efficient than other research methods, partly
because it requires data selection instead of data collection. Many documents are already
available publicly, including those online. Document analysis was key in Bowen’s study on
the impact of social funds- a major antipoverty government initiative in Jamaica (2009).
Bowen reviewed approximately 40 documents and placed them in context for analysis
(Bowen, 2009). These included policy documents, meeting minutes, letters, special reports,
and newspaper articles. The fact that documents provide broad coverage over time, over
multiple events and settings is advantageous. However, he found these documents
ultimately incomplete and selective. Some only documented the positive aspects of the
initiative. Some concentrated extensively or exclusively on subproject components.
However, these documents were also useful for insights into previously unconsidered
subprojects (Bowen, 2009). However, as a disadvantage, access to some documents may
not possible, or retrieving documents may be blocked during the research process. An
incomplete set of documents may suggest ‘biased selectivity’ on the part of the researcher
even if that is not the case (Bowen, 2009). Documents are nevertheless largely non-reactive
to the research process as they are generally not concerned with reflexivity. This can be an
issue for other qualitative research methods. Corroborating evidence from other sources is
therefore highly advisable (Wesley, 2014). Such triangulation can take the form of a
quantitative positivist analysis to bolster the qualitative interpretative findings (Wesley, 2014).
In a study of Party Ideologies in America (Gerring, 2001) qualitative analysis was helpful,
however. “To make claims about party ideologies,” Gerring (2001) argued, “one must involve
oneself in the meat and gristle of political life, which is to say in language. Language
connotes the raw data of most studies of how people think about politics, for it is through
language that politics is experienced” (Gerring, 2001: 298). Gerring (2001: 297) suggested,
“it would be unrealistic to expect content analysis to bear the entire burden of analysis on a
subject as vast and complex as party ideology.”

Elite Interviewing

This research method can be viewed epistemologically in various ways. From hermeneutics,
researchers can look beyond the interview situation to the contextual position provided by
history and custom (Englander, 2012). A phenomenological perspective to interviewing
however focuses on consciousness and the overall context to search for essential meanings
in descriptions (Englander, 2012). A dialectical standpoint focuses on the contradictions of a

2
statement and its relevance to the contradictions of the social and material world (Englander,
2012). In terms of technique, one fundamental aspect of good interviewing is asking the right
questions. In a structured interview, each question is often carefully worded beforehand
(Brayda and Boyce, 2014). There is a higher likelihood that data gathered from a structured
interview is more objective and therefore amenable to statistical analysis. This more
adequately reflects a positivist ontological approach. An unstructured interview, however,
may benefit from an experienced interviewer who could adapt freely to the direction of
conversation. Interviews conceptually are arguably too reliant on participants’ capacities to
express, interact and conceptualise however (Mason, 2002). Patton (2002) also highlights
that there are some interview topics that are discussed freely in western culture but are
taboo elsewhere. Some taboo topics are “concerning family members, political views, who
owns what, how people come to be in certain positions, and sources of income” (p. 393).
Body language may also be misinterpreted during interviews depending on the cultural
context. In India, moving the head sideways means the other person understands. Similar
head movement in the United States indicates the other person does not understand
(Ferraro and Andreatta, 2011). Martinez Tyson et al. (2018) highlight the importance of
language in their study with ethnic participants. They referenced cancer survivor study in
which the participants spoke predominately in Spanish to native English-speaking
researchers. They highlight the importance of developing trust, respect, and cultural
sensitivity in interviewing situations. They also illustrate the importance of considering culture
and literacy in interviews. One danger of using interviewing as a primary collection method is
that data inappropriately reflects the researchers’ ontological position of either positivism or
interpretivism therefore (Mason 2017 and Charmaz, 2014). Epistemologically, it could be
argued interviews can never adequately reproduce realities (Mason, 2017; Charmaz, 2014
and Silverman, 2013). Participants’ stories can also act to serve conversational rules and to
exercise subtle power relationships (Charmaz, 2006). Again, corroborating findings with
quantitative evidence would therefore be useful.

Conclusion

In conclusion, major features of both document analysis and elite interviewing appear, from
an ontological positivist perspective, as potential sources of error, so neither from a positivist
perspective can realistically be a truly scientific method. Although positivism is frequently
labelled as uncritical, since it generally views historical and social functions of social
research as outside of its scientific domain, positivists in fact contributed to moving social
research beyond its purely qualitative capacities of interpretation. Corroborating research
methods opens the possibility of intersubjective control and critiques of research findings.
There are numerous potential challenges to conducting research. I have attempted to
highlight potential problems that may be most prescient to my research and possible
solutions to overcome or minimise their impact on my research findings.

1611 Words

Bibliography

Bowen, G.A., 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative

research journal, 9(2), p.27.

Brannen, J. ed., 2017. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Routledge.

3
Brayda, W.C. and Boyce, T.D., 2014. So you really want to interview me?: Navigating
“sensitive” qualitative research interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 13(1), pp.318-334.

Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing grounded theory. sage.

Dieronitou, I., 2014. The ontological and epistemological foundations of qualitative and
quantitative approaches to research. International journal of economics, commerce and
management, 2(10), pp.1-17.

Englander, M., 2012. The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human
scientific research. Journal of phenomenological psychology, 43(1), pp.13-35.

Fellows, R.F. and Liu, A.M., 2015. Research methods for construction. John Wiley & Sons.

Ferraro, G. and Andreatta, S., 2011. Cultural anthropology: An applied perspective. Nelson

Education.

Finlay, L., 2012. Debating phenomenological methods. In Hermeneutic phenomenology in

education (pp. 15-37). Brill Sense.

Gerring, J., 2001. Party ideologies in America, 1828-1996. Cambridge University Press.

Gravetter, F.J. and Forzano, L.A.B., 2018. Research methods for the behavioral sciences.
Cengage Learning.

Mason, J., 2017. Qualitative researching. Sage.

Moon, K. and Blackman, D., 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for
natural scientists. Conservation Biology, 28(5), pp.1167-1177.

Patten, M.L. and Newhart, M., 2017. Understanding research methods: An overview of the
essentials. Taylor & Francis.

Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative interviewing. Qualitative research and evaluation

methods, 3(1), pp.344-347.

Silverman, D., 2013. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. SAGE publications

limited.

Walden University, 2010. 7 Research Challenges (And how to overcome them)

https://www.waldenu.edu/connect/newsroom/publications/articles/2010/01-research-
challenges Written: 01/01/2010. Accessed: 30/05/2020.

Wesley, J., 2014. The qualitative analysis of political documents. From Texts to Political
Positions-Text Analysis across Disciplines, pp.135-162.