Name: Kimberly A.

Granados Rating:

Student ID Number: 1502567

Week 2 – Positivism, Interpretivism, Postpositivism and Synthesis

Essay on Epistemology and Ontology

Instructions: Write an essay on Kratochwil and Ruggie’s paper on the contradiction in ontology
and epistemology in regime analysis. Your essay may be two-three pages in length, 1.5 spaced with
12-point font size. Use the guide questions below.

What is interpretivist (or reflectivist) approach in International Relations? How does is differ from
positivist approach? Which do you think is more appropriate research methodology by which we
can analyze issues and puzzles in IR? Skim through the article of Kratochwil and Ruggie. Don’t pay
attention to the detail. What are the main arguments of Kratochwil and Ruggie? What do you think
Kratochwil and Ruggie meant by claiming “epistemology fundamentally contradicts ontology” (in
regime analysis? In your paper, you may want to discuss the proper ways to analyze international
regimes.

In my own understanding, the interpretivist approach is about

understanding the phenomena by identifying the beliefs and desires by the social
actors. It is to reflect situational determinants that may able to help solve the
problems. The knowledge is gain depends in the society, since the society is
socially constructed. It is to understand and interpret the meanings in human
behavior or in international society rather than to generalize and predict causes
and effects. It is more like a subjective experience. It is believed that reality is
multiple and relative. In positivism, it is believed that there is a single objectivity
reality to any situation. It attempts to transfer the methods of natural science to
social science. In this approach, it is hypothetical. It suggests the separation of
object and the subject. It focuses more in the object where the social actors follow
a certain law that makes them move or interact. In positivist approach, it is to
explain and describe, but also to predict and define, since the hypothetical
method make it possible to identify what is likely to happen in the future.

For me, the more appropriate research methodology is the interpretivist

approach because it can give depth studies of culture, issue of ethics and
leadership. It can give new concepts and insightful conclusions, and gives you
option and different points of view. People place different interpretation on the
situation, in order to make sense of and understand motives, actions and
intentions of other leaders or people who are involved in making decisions in
international organizations.

First let us define what epistemology and ontology is. For what I’ve learned,
ontology is the study of being and it deals with the nature of reality. Epistemology
is the study of knowledge and how it is reached or the different methods to gain
knowledge. In ontology of regimes rests upon a strong element of
intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity is between people if they agree on a given set
of meanings or a definition of the situation. Ontology is about understanding of
the behavior of the social actors that is why called subjective. The institution tries
to listen and understand the constituents in order to solve the problem. The
problem is, the actors cannot express through behavior because they are not
allowed to communicate through behavior. Example of this is the Verstehen
which is to put yourself in others shoes. But a positivist epistemology simply
cannot accommodate itself to so intersubjective an ontology. Hence, the case is
treated in the literature as illustrating cynicism, complicity, and the erosion of
respect for the GATT regime. Positivist epistemology, therefore, assumes that only
“facts” derived from the scientific method can make legitimate knowledge claims.
So, the epistemology contradicts ontology because there is no validation. It is
purely theories. It poses no challenge. Epistemology believes that the issue can be
solved through the treatment of “objective information” which it has facts and can
govern the international organization well. But lastly, it is suggested the
interpretative epistemology can contribute the effectiveness of informal ordering
mechanism and etc. for the betterment of the international organization and so it
can govern well.