Key Terms in Philosophy
Key Terms in Philosophy | Mike McDonald | September 25th, 2003
One of the first problems I (and probably many others) had when I started the Aston course was understanding all the scholarly jargon. Of course, I learnt a certain amount when I was an undergrad, but since my area was classical music, the jargon was mostly different. One particular area of difficulty was the use of philosophical terms such as "empiricism", "ontology", "phenomenology", "epistemology", and so on. Even after reading several definitions of individual terms, I didn't feel that much wiser, since the definitions were so abstract and also so interdependent. However, the concepts seem to be fundamental to an understanding of the basic issues in research, and I was therefore very pleased to find some enlightenment in a book I am currently reading called "An Analysis of Thinking and Research about Qualitative Methods", by W. James Potter (Earlbaum, 1996).
Chapter 3, "Issues of Belief", presents a very coherent and easy-to-understand survey of the terms, and summarises them in a table on pp. 46-47. Although the book is not written from an ELT perspective
(the author is involved in media studies), what he has to say is very interesting and eloquently presented, and I can recommend it particularly to people doing FND or IIC.
Mike McDonald
Re: Some key terms in philosophy | Keith Richards | September 25th, 2003
Hi
Thanks to Mike for his posting. Although the extract below won't cover the range of Mike's reference, it might help with some key terms. It's taken from my Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL, pp. 33-36 (okay, shameless plug, but it does respond to Mike's point, though if you're mad enough to want to buy it, give it a week or two before you rush out to the bookseller - I haven't even got my copies yet even though the publisher has been flogging advance copies at conferences) and I've included it in the body of this email because that way Jerry can include it on his website. I'm afraid it means that my Kylie/Cecily thing doesn't emerge as clearly as in the book and the final table just isn't, but I hope it still makes sense.
All the best
Keith
Ontology and Epistemology
Any paradigmatic position can be represented in terms of these two intimately related aspects, which have to do with the nature of our beliefs about reality (ontology) and about knowledge (epistemology), beliefs that impinge not only on our research but also on other aspects of our lives. Inevitably, when so much is at stake, debates tend to be vigorous and often involve quite fundamental questions about how the territory should be represented, so that any attempt to convey the situation impartially must somehow find a position between the safe ground of crude generalization and a morass of subtle detail. My compromise is based on a sketch rooted in classroom experience, highlighting how beliefs and behaviour are related. It involves two very different teachers.
Two teachers
Kylie believes that there are laws governing language learning, many of which we have already understood, and she further contends that there are clear rules of behaviour that should be applied for the good of those involved. Her language classes are formal affairs, following established procedures and patterns, and with sufficient variety and good humour to make them popular with her students, though some find them a bit too regimented. They tend to be teacher-centred affairs, orchestrated by Kylie, who makes sure that she covers all the pedagogic points in her plan and provides plenty of teacher feedback and correction.
Cecily believes that we are making progress in our understanding of language learning, but that what matters most is the classroom context and relationships between the learner and the environment. She thinks it's a mistake to settle for straightforward answers and explanations; we have to work together towards understanding and need always to be aware of the importance of context. Her lessons are more informal and student-centred than those of Kylie, exploiting learning opportunities as they arise and sometimes taking risks in terms of what is explored. Students find them entertaining but some would prefer a clearer structure and more teacher input.
Teachers like Kylie and Cecily may never have given much thought to the philosophical roots of their ideas about teaching, but underlying their beliefs are two very different ontological positions. Ontology, literally the science or study of being, is concerned with the nature of reality and their stances might be expressed as follows:
Kylie believes that the world 'out there' is a very real one that can be studied and understood in order to identify the laws and rules that govern behaviour. Hers is a realist position.
Cecily's view is relativist, denying that there is any single reality independent of our ways of understanding it, and preferring instead to think in terms of various realities created by different individuals and groups at different times in different circumstances.
These contrasting views imply incompatible epistemological viewpoints. Epistemology, the science or study of knowledge, refers to the views we have about the nature of knowledge and the relationship between knower and known. Again, the two teachers take up very different positions:
From Kylie's objectivist perspective negotiated positions are unacceptable: because she believes that the truth is accessible, she would be remiss in her duty if she did not pass on her know-ledge to her students.
Cecily adopts a subjectivist stance that sees knowledge as something created through interaction between the world and the individual, so we find her less willing than Kylie to take up dogmatic positions, preferring instead to build on local understandings.
So while it would be acceptable to say that Kylie has a transmission view of knowledge and teaching, while Cecily adopts a more exploratory approach, it is nevertheless true that underlying these are more fundamental beliefs about being and knowing. Such differences also underlie research positions.
Some extreme formulations
The descriptions above have drawn some very crude connections between belief and behaviour, when in fact the relationship is both subtle and complex. At the epistemological level there are broadly two extremes between which all positions are to be found: objectivism and subjectivism. Neither of these should be swallowed in their undiluted forms, which might facetiously be summed up as 'The Truth is out there' and 'The Truth is in here'. An extreme representation of objectivism would hold that all objects in the world exist apart from any consciousness and that they are essentially just as they are: the tree outside my window is the physical essence of treeness, the fact of which exists independently of any mind to apprehend it (and therefore in the absence of any concept of fact). A similar formulation for subjectivism would claim that no object exists apart from consciousness, that the so called 'external world' is not external at all but a mental construct: this table is no more than an idea (without a head to be in). These representations, like my cheap rebuttals, do not do justice to the complex and important philosophical issues associated with them, but I include them in this form because it is essential to recognise that these are extremes and not beliefs that we should unthinkingly attribute to positions we happen to disagree with - a mistake that is all too common. With this reservation firmly in mind, I offer Box 1.5 as a useful but very crude summary of the two positions I have outlined, including a third perspective that is also relevant to research: the axiological, that which is concerned with truth or worth.
Box 1.5: Two Positions
From an ontological perspective:
Position A
It is possible to build up a coherent picture of the structure of an external
world and the relationship between events within it.
Position B
The concept of reality is essentially a construction based on the interaction
of the individual with the environment.
From an epistemological perspective:
Position A
On the basis of such observation/ investigation
it is possible to establish general truths and laws that are accessible to
all and can inform action.
Position B
The exploration of this relationship enables us to understand the ways in
which the world is interpreted and common understandings are constructed.
From an axiological perspective:
Position A
These truths and
the processes by which they are established are essentially value-free.
Position B
All truths, like all investigations and understandings, are value-laden.
Some key terms in philosophy | Jenny Desonneville | September 25, 2003
Hi Keith,
Thanks for your clear explanation. I guess I kind of knew it- but your summary made it so much clearer and it was so helpful to have the concrete examples of the two teachers and to have the theory contextualized in the practice.
It is very useful when the tutors step in and make a contribution like this.
Jenny
Re: Key terms in philosophy | Mike McDonald | September 29th, 2003
Belated thanks to Keith for the extract from his forthcoming book. I found it useful because it grounds the issues in ELT situations that are instantly recognizable. Arguments that seem hopelessly abstruse when expressed in general terms look a lot easier to understand when they're contextualized.
(Does that last sentence make me epistemologically a rational empiricist?
Hmm . . .)
Mike McDonald
with 
and 
