Ontology and Epistemology

Ontology: The branch of metaphysics (philosophy concerning the overall nature of

what things are) is concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds
of things that actually exist. In other words, addressing the question: What is
existence? and What is the nature of existence? When we ask deep questions about
"what is the nature of the universe?" or "Is there a god?" or "What happens to us
when we die?" or "What principles govern the properties of matter?" we are asking
inherently ontological questions.

Epistemology: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge

itself, its possibility, scope, and general basis. More broadly: How do we go about
knowing things? or How do we separate true ideas from false ideas? or How do we know
what is true? or "How can we be confident when we have located 'truth'?" "What are the
systematic ways we can determine when something is good or bad?"

So ontology is about what is true and epistemology then is about methods of figuring
out those truths.

The split between Plato and Aristotle is both ontological and

epistemic. The split between religion and science is both ontological and
epistemic. For example, religion and science offer two very different ontologies
(theories about what is out there) and epistemology (ways to figure out what is out
there). And the split between Plato and Aristotle matches exactly the split
between religion and science...and you should leave this class
understanding why and how! See Plato vs. Aristotle

Ontology is the philosophical field revolving around (the study of) the nature of
reality (all that is or exists), and the different entities and categories within
reality.
Epistemology is the philosophical field revolving around (the study of)
knowledge and how to reach it. One might say that it includes the ontology of
knowledge.
Examples of theories within the field of ontology are: ontological monism,
pluralism, idealism, materialism, dualism, etc.
Examples of theories within the field of epistemology are: realism, relativism,
rationalism, irrationalism, etc.
As noted already, ontology is theory of being, and epistemology is theory of
knowledge. But what is this “being” that ontology is a theory of? And what is
this “knowledge” that epistemology is a theory of? The answers are not
singular and will not be found in philosophy. Rather, the answers are various
and found in the special sciences, each of which is a certain kind of knowledge
about a specific category of beings—viz., the kind of beings it is knowledge of.
Thus, to speak very roughly, mathematics is knowledge of sets, physics is
knowledge of the motions of elementary particles, chemistry is knowledge of
compounds of these, biology is knowledge of living beings, psychology is
knowledge of conscious beings, and sociology is knowledge of societies. Each
of these sciences therefore has its own ontology, the distinctive beings it is
knowledge of, and each has its own epistemology, the distinctive methods its
practitioners use to acquire their special kind of knowledge of these beings. As
reflection on the logic of all of the sciences, philosophy has important things to
say about each of them, and insofar as it does, it is concerned with their
various ontologies and their various epistemologies. However, contrary to
widespread belief, there is no branch of philosophy called ontology the job of
which is to determine what is real simpliciter; nor is there any called
epistemology to say how knowledge of all reality, however conceived, is to be
acquired. As always, the job of the philosopher is to be an under laborer in the
scientist’s garden.

David L Morgan added an answer

January 31, 2016
Part of your problem is that the leaders of the movement towards
metaphysical thinking (ontology and epistemology) about qualitative research
were quite explicit in not connecting these issues to concrete methods for
collecting and analyzing data. In particular, Yvonna Linclon and Egon Guba
always insisted that the issues here involved what they called paradigms (such
as post-positivism and constructivism) and not differences in method.
I myself have argued that an emphasis on ontology and epistemology is now a
rather old-fashioned way of thinking about issues in science research
methodology. In 1985, when Lincoln and Guba wrote their book, Naturalistic
Inquiry, that emphasis played an important role in justifying qualitative inquiry,
but since then it has become increasingly problematic.
One major factor here has been the rise of mixed methods, which doesn't fit
into the binary opposition of post-positivism and constructivism. Another has
been the rise of alternative paradigms such as pragmatism and critical realism
that go beyond Lincoln and Giba's version of paradigms. Finally, there is the
problem that you seem to be having: thinking in terms of ontology and
epistemology provides little guidance with regard to designing and conducting
concrete research projects.

Post-modernism:
Postmodernists reject the idea of a fixed, universal and eternal foundation to
reality. They argue that because reality is in part culturally dependent and
culture changes over time and varies from community to community, we can
logically assume that reality is not the same for everybody. Knowledge is
fundamentally fragmented and unstable. Narratives of truth and knowledge
are deconstructed. Convention is challenged, research styles are mixed,
ambiguity is tolerated, diversity is emphasised, innovation and change are
embraced, and multiple realities are focused on. Postmodernism rejects the
possibility that we can have objective knowledge. Postmodernism values the
subjective and multiple opinions of individuals and communities rather than
predetermined rules for action. It assigns value to multiple meanings rather
than the single, authoritative voice of the expert researcher. This is because
what we call knowledge has to be made with the linguistic and other meaning-
making resources of a particular culture, and different cultures can see the
world in different ways. Language is fluid and arbitrary and rooted in power or
knowledge relations. Meaning is, therefore, also fluid and “messy”. Following
on from this reasoning, postmodernists caution that we should be careful with
generalisations, even when it comes to words such as “many”, “most” or
“often”.
Postmodernism rejects the emphasis on rational discovery through the
scientific method. Postmodernism replaces rational discovery through
scientific research with respect for difference and a celebration of the local and
at the expense of the universal. It accepts that reality is socially constructed,
but claims that it does not exist objectively in the external environment, simply
to be copied in our thoughts. Reality is a human creation.

Generally, postmodernism accept the basic ontological assumption of

relativism and claims that there can be no “objective” or final truth as all
“truth” is a socially constructed entity. This does not mean that just anything
can be accepted as truth. All knowledge of reality bears the mark of human
culture, personality and biology, and these cannot be separated from what a
specific group of people or culture would call knowledge. In addition, it is
asserted that we construct reality in accordance with our needs, interests,
prejudices and cultural traditions. Although some postmodernists would like us
to believe that reality is entirely a human construct, such a statement stand in
contrast to the propositions put forward by other postmodernists
Critical theory. The term ‘critical’ refers to the capacity to inquire ‘against
the grain’: to question the conceptual and theoretical bases of knowledge and
method, to ask questions that go beyond prevailing assumptions and
understandings, and to acknowledge the role of power and social position in
phenomena.

Critical theory is prescriptive, explanatory, practical and normative, all at the

same time.[1] That is, it explains what is wrong with the current social reality,
identifies the actors to change it, and provides both clear norms for criticism
and achievable practical goals for social transformation. Its intention is not
merely to give an account of society and behaviour but to realise a society that
is based on equality and democracy for all the people in the society.

What Is Agency Theory?

Agency theory is one the most prominent theoretical perspectives utilized in

business and management research. Agency theory argues—using
fundamental assumptions that agents are: (a) self-interested, (b) boundedly
rational, and (c) different from principals in their goals and risk-taking
preferences—that a problem occurs when one party (a principal) employs
another (an agent) to make decisions and act in their stead. Essentially, the
value of a principal-agent relationship is not optimized because the two
contracted parties may have different interests and information is
asymmetric (not equal). Agency costs are the result of principal and agent
conflicts of interest and disagreements regarding actions that are taken. As
such, monitoring and incentive-alignment systems are used to curb costs
associated with opportunist behavior.

Agency theory is a principle that is used to explain and resolve issues in the
relationship between business principals and their agents. Most commonly,
that relationship is the one between shareholders, as principals, and company
executive, as agents.

How Agency Theory Works

An agency, in broad terms, is any relationship between two parties in which
one, the agent, represents the other, the principal, in day-to-day transactions.
The principal or principals have hired the agent to perform a service on their
behalf.

Principals delegate decision-making authority to agents. Because many

decisions that affect the principal financially are made by the agent,
differences of opinion and even differences in priorities and interests can
arise. This is sometimes referred to as the principal-agent problem.

By definition, an agent is using the resources of a principal. The principal has

entrusted money but has little or no day-to-day input. The agent is the
decision-maker but is incurring little or no risk because any losses will be
borne by the principal.

Agency theory assumes that the interests of a principal and an agent are not
always in alignment.

The Organizational Theory refers to the set of interrelated concepts,

definitions that explain the behavior of individuals or groups or subgroups,
who interacts with each other to perform the activities intended towards the
accomplishment of a common goal.

Behavioral decision theory

BDT is a descriptive theory of human decision making. It starts with a traditional, normative
theory of rational decision making, e.g., Bayesian decision making. It then tries to understand
and incorporate actual decision making patterns of humans, e.g., underweighting or
overweighting of probabilities, decision or choice framing, choosing to "satisfice," etc., to
describe actual decision making tendencies. These tendencies, once understood, can then be
addressed, e.g., by designing and intervening with appropriate decision support systems.

The resource-based view (RBV)

is a model that sees resources as key to superior firm performance. If a

resource exhibits VRIO attributes, the resource enables the firm to gain and
sustain competitive advantage.
VRIO framework

is the tool used to analyze firm’s internal resources and capabilities to find out
if they can be a source of sustained competitive advantage.

Institutional theory attends to the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure. It
considers the processes by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms, and routines,
become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior. It inquires into how these
elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall
into decline and disuse. Although the ostensible subject is stability and order in social life,
students of institutions must perforce attend not just to consensus and conformity but to conflict
and change in social structures.

Social constructionism is the theory that people develop knowledge of the

world in a social context, and that much of what we perceive as reality depends
on shared assumptions. From a social constructionist perspective, many
things we take for granted and believe are objective reality are actually socially
constructed, and thus, can change as society changes.

 The theory of social constructionism states that meaning and knowledge are socially
created.
 Social constructionists believe that things that are generally viewed as natural or
normal in society, such as understandings of gender, race, class, and disability, are
socially constructed, and consequently aren’t an accurate reflection of reality.
  Social constructs are often created within specific institutions and cultures and come
to prominence in certain historical periods. Social constructs’ dependence of
historical, political, and economic conditions can lead them to evolve and change.

Interpretive theories, sometimes referred to as interpretivism or philosophical

interpretivism, are orientations to social reality based on the goal of understanding. Thus, we
can define interpretive theories as ontological and epistemological tools used in research
concerned with understanding how individuals and groups create meaning in their everyday
practices, communication, and lived experiences. In part, interpretivists are (a) scholars who
are interested in the ways communities, cultures, or individuals create meaning from their
own actions, rituals, interactions, and experiences; (b) scholars who wish to interpret local
meanings by locating them into a broader historical, geographical, political, linguistic,
ideological, economic, and cultural milieu; (c) researchers who look at the meanings of texts
and the codes and rules (Vannini, 2009 AU3:

Stakeholder theory was first described by Dr. F. Edward Freeman, a professor at the
University of Virginia, in his landmark book, “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach.” It suggests that shareholders are merely one of many stakeholders in a company.
The stakeholder ecosystem, this theory says, involves anyone invested and involved in, or
affected by, the company: employees, environmentalists near the company’s plants, vendors,
governmental agencies, and more. Freeman’s theory suggests that a company’s real success
lies in satisfying all its stakeholders, not just those who might profit from its stock.

Network theory involves the study of the way elements in a network interact. “A simple way of
understanding a network is by assuming that a set of objects are connected by some sort of
link,” he explains. “The set of objects may represent, for example, human beings, products,
ingredients, diseases, or brain regions, whereas the links are relationships or structural
connections.”

Seminal works/pieces, sometimes called pivotal or landmark studies, are articles

that initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular
discipline