In Cartographies of Knowledge (2011), Celine-Marie Pascale offers insight into how research methods are embedded in historical philosophical roots and are situated in ‘discourses of power’ and knowledge.  By utilizing existing frameworks without fully examining their underpinnings and biases, dominant disciplinary discourses are often reproduced unconsciously.

In her discussion of subjectivity, agency and experience, Pascale discusses the foundations on which sociological studies are designed,  highlighting how we often focus on the applied methodologies without paying sufficient attention to the underlying assumptions on which these methodologies rest.  By not looking at how these theories and methods came to be throughout history, we can fall into a trap of an unintended disjuncture in our research design.  This in turn continuously hinders advancements toward a more socially just set of findings.  While sociological research considers historical philosophical assumptions, these are often marginalized in an effort to make the process more pragmatic, which can often re-inforce dominant discourses rather than facilitate an advancement within the discourse.

Our understanding and examination of our assumptions about what exists and what we are studying must also be consistent with the way we find out about what we are studying. If we undertake research from a realist trajectory that assumes that social beings exist as independent entities then we would need to learn about these by examining them internally, to find a truth about the individual.  Our assumptions about how they exist must be consistent with the way in which we inquire about their existence.  However, if we were to premise our research on an interpretive basis, then we would assume that subjects are the expression of social processes, they are discursive categories of identification, and we would need to find out about them by examining context, and their agency within this context.  Realists see themselves as subjects examining objects that choose to make decisions.  Beginning our research with the assumption that humans choose to behave in a certain way would lead to very different results than if we assume that humans act in certain ways because of their position within a social context…an objective existence was challenged by feminist and race theorists who asserted that researchers are indeed subjective, and have a position that influences their assumptions, making the process more discursive.

Understanding our theories and assumptions about the nature and relations of existence (ontology) and the assumptions about the ways we can learn about what exists in the world (the relationship between the knower and the known and how valid knowledge is created) is essential to ensure that we are consistent in our research design and analysis.

So-to put this into context a little…in my revision of available literature, most of which is generated for policy making purposes, young people are indeed seen as objects that we can examine, understand and plan tangible programs for.  We continue to divorce these young people of the social and cultural local context in which they exist…By using one stand point, we are doing an injustice to the existing body of literature.. we are spinning our wheels.  If we continue our starting point by looking at their existence as individual and rational beings divorced of their social context, then decision-makers will continue to make policies that would indeed be pursued by a strictly rational person–one that maximizes their gain in the labour market and helps them achieve status and access more of what they want socially and economically.

Yet, if we start with a different assumption about the nature and relations of existence; by assuming that young people exist within a society that limits ‘agentic’ individual behavior, and that has many structural barriers in place…then perhaps we could learn a lot more about why their behavior doesn’t go in line with our assumptions about ‘rational behaviour’.  A young Saudi is more than ever a ‘social construct’…limited in his or her access to knowledge, limited in his or her ability to critically engage in what that means, but also very aware of the haves and have nots of his or her existence.  Bombarded from a very young age with expectations and restrictions and limits and demands and responsibilities and criticisms and love and hate and fear and comfort.. told over and over again to raise their head and be proud, but faced over and over again with retribution…  Expected to follow suit but also pushed to achieve.  Starting with that assumption about the nature of existence, then we would be looking for very different evidence for why young people don’t act ‘the way they’re supposed to’.  Epistemology means the way we learn about what exists. That’s why it’s important. Because if we continue to ask young people to fill out closed-ended surveys then we will endlessly learn more and say more about the person that wrote the survey, and a whole lot less about the person who is filling it out.