Ontology and epistemology are two words that can evoke a real sense of dread in undergraduate and postgraduate students alike. But what do they actually mean? Briefly, ontology is about the question, 'WHAT am I looking at?' and epistemology is about the question, 'HOW do I go about studying it?' Ontology - the what question, epistemology - the how question. In this video, I'll get into more detail and explain them in relatable, everyday terms and by the end of this video, you'll feel more confident in understanding them and writing about them in your academic work. We're going to tackle ontology first and then move onto epistemology. I'm Dr Elizabeth Yardley and for the last two decades I've been teaching sociology, criminology and social policy in UK universities. In that time I have helped students smash through abstract, impenetrable academic jargon and supercharge their assignments, ending up with first class degrees, masters, PhDs and places on some of the best graduate schemes. Let me help you get fantastic results like this by subscribing to my channel so you don't miss any of my videos. Let's get straight into it with ontology. You should think of ontology as the 'What?' question. What am I looking at? What do I think the social world looks like? How we see the social world will have an impact on the kind of research we do within it, so understanding the range of different ways of looking at the world is an important thing to know because it's where we begin from. Ontology is kind of like seeing the social world like a hotel or a home. Is the social world like a hotel that we just stay in for a while? We spend some time there, we don't change anything about the hotel, we're guests. The hotel exists independently of us, it just is. It was there before we arrived, it will be there after we leave. We have no influence or impact upon it. It is unaffected by us. It is a concrete reality in and of itself. It is external to us. This is a realist position. Realists believe that there is a tangible social world, an objective reality. It exists 'out there'. It is external to us. It is relatively stable and fixed. Regardless of what we do, or how we choose to understand it, it exists nonetheless. It is simply there, and has a reality all of its own, independently of the things that individuals do within it. We don't create it, we don't control or influence it. It simply just 'is'. It is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. It appears the same to everyone who looks at it. It is concrete. It is unbiased. It is real. The other way of seeing the social world is viewing it more like a home that we live in. We make changes to our home, we style it, decorate it, put our own stuff in it. We have an impact upon it. We create it as our home, it's not simply an objective, concrete house or apartment, it is a home and our impact upon it is immense. We create our home. We influence it. It is uniquely us. It is uniquely ours. It is personal, emotional, saturated with feeling. This is an idealist position. Idealists do not see the social world as fixed or stable, but as permanently under construction. It is not concrete, it's blobby and jelly like, it is always in the process of being created and moulded. It is fluid. It changes shape. It looks and feels different to different people. We use names, concepts, ideas and labels as tools to make sense of what we experience, to describe, categorize and make meaning. There is not one objective reality, but multiple realities. Our understanding of the social world will always be subjective, meaning that it will be shaped by our own feelings, interpretations and prejudices. It does not appear the same to everyone who looks at it. That's ontology, let's briefly recap. Ontology is the 'What?' question. What am I looking at? What do I think the social world looks like? Do we see it as something that's relatively fixed, rigid and unchangeable, that we don't have much influence over? This is a realist stance. Or do we see it as something that's flexible, something that changes as it responds to what people do within it? This is an idealist stance. Now let's move onto epistemology. Epistemology is the 'How?' question. How do I study this social world? How do I approach this social world that I want to make sense of, what's my strategy? How should I go about generating knowledge about the social world? Again we have two positions. There are those who seek to explain and identify the causes. Then there are those who seek to understand and identify the meanings. Those who seek to explain and identify the causes are positivists. They believe that we should try to understand the social world in the same way we try to understand the natural world. The kind of questions they ask have a lot in common with the questions of natural sciences - like biology, chemistry, physics. We should stay true to the principles and processes of the natural sciences. We should record, test and experiment. We should be objective and value free in our research. We should focus on explaining human behavior and ask, "What causes people to act in the way they do?", "What factors impact upon this?". Research is often deductive, which means positivists test out existing theories that have been developed by other people who came before them. On the other hand, those who seek to understand things and identify the meanings are interpretivists. They believe that what we study in social sciences is wholly different from what we study in the natural sciences. Humans are distinctive, unique and individual. People are not like rocks or substances or solids, liquids or gases. Their behavior has meaning. The social world is meaningful. People's actions are based upon how they interpret the social world and this varies from one person to the next. We should focus upon understanding human behaviour. How can we make sense of people's behavior? What does it mean for them and others? We should seek to empathize: see things from other people's point of view and perspective. Interpretivist research is often inductive, focusing upon the generation of new theory from what we observe, rather than testing out theories from people who came before us. We start over, we generate our own understandings. So that is epistemology. Let's recap those two positions. Are we seeking to explain things and identify the causes, observing the social world from a distance as detached, objective observers who are seeking to explain what's going on? This is a positivist stance. Or are we seeking to understand things and identify the meanings, immersing ourselves within the social world, recognising that we re part of it? This is an interpretivist stance. Essentially, ontology and epistemology really are as simple as What? and How? . Ontology is the what question. When you look at the social world, what are you seeing? Epistemology is the how question. How do you then go about researching that social world. Ontology what am I looking at? Epistemology how do I study it? If you are confused by critical analysis and thrown by theory, you should check out my digital course, Theory Boss in which I empower smart social science students on taught postgraduate programmes, who don't feel they're getting the grades they deserve, to master theory and crush critical analysis so they can ace their assignments and write dazzling dissertations. Head to the link in the description to find out more about Theory Boss. I will see you back here very soon with more theory and critical analysis tips.