Sistema reduccional mapuche y migración: las condiciones estructurales de la emigra- emigra-ción

Researchers’ standpoints regarding the nature of knowledge about reality (epistemology) and the nature of reality (ontology) are mostly hidden in the research process (Creswell, 2009). However, social science researchers should clearly identify and explain their standpoints in order to reveal the structure and effectiveness of their study. This section introduces these concepts, and explains the choices regarding the epistemology and ontology of this study.

Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge, and questions what the acceptable

knowledge in a given research context is (Carson et al., 2001). Central epistemological issues

provide grounds for the discussions of what kinds of knowledge are possible and how researchers can ensure that the knowledge is adequate and legitimate (Crotty, 1998).

Ontology is the study of the nature of social entities (Carson et al., 2001; Creswell, 2009). The main point of ontological consideration is the question of what is the form and nature of

reality (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).

Carson et al. summarise the relationship between ontology and epistemology:

“Essentially, ontology is reality, epistemology is the relationship between reality and the researcher...” (Carson et al., 2001:4)

In debates in social sciences, the positivist ontology assumes that social entities and the real world should be considered objectively and reality should be external to social actors. Conversely, the interpretivist ontology holds that realities are social constructions built by the

99

perceptions and actions of social actors and knowledge of the real world is meaningful to social actors on its own terms (Crotty, 1998; Carson et al., 2001).

Crotty (1998:10) indicates that “epistemological and ontological issues tend to emerge together”, and because of their mutual influence, it is difficult to separate them conceptually. The explanation of one is constrained by the explanation of the other (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Therefore, it was decided not to separate epistemological and ontological standpoints for this study.

Under the umbrella term of interpretivism fall many accepted epistemological and ontological ideas with their own philosophies, strategies and methods (Goulding, 1999). Perspectives such as realism, phenomenology, hermeneutics and constructionism are primarily concerned with understanding human behaviour and are widely applied within marketing and consumer research.

Realism, however, differs somewhat from the others regarding its views of nature of reality and truth (Peter, 1992). Realists believe that there is one real and true world to discover. However, it is not completely apprehendable because science cannot know and say what the real world exactly is (Healy and Perry, 2000). Realists emphasise the difference between the real world and perceptions of this world (Carson et al., 2001). According to them, perception is not the reality itself; rather it is a window onto reality which can be used to triangulate the image of reality with the help of the perceptions, or windows, of others (Healy and Perry, 2000). Therefore, realism relies on multiple perceptions as data sources about one true reality and tries to reach that one true reality as the aim of the study.

Phenomenology and hermeneutics are orientated toward the empathic understanding of human experience from the actor’s own perspective (Goulding, 1999). According to this,

100

reality is not regarded as one real truth, but the way it appears to individuals in their consciousness (Carson et al., 2001). Researchers try to understand how individuals make sense of the world. Hence, the aim is to try to see the world from the participants’ perspective while eliminating the initial assumptions about it (Goulding, 1999). Compared to phenomenology, hermeneutics is more context orientated, and also tries to reach beyond the observable (Carson et al., 2001). Phenomenologists only focus on the views and experiences of the participants, while hermeneutics engage with other forms of data about social phenomena such as cultural, social, and environmental factors.

Constructionism believes that all knowledge, all reality and their meanings are continually being constructed by individuals, and their interactions with each other. Therefore the world is being developed and transmitted in a social context (Crotty, 1998). According to this, “truth is a construction that refers to a particular belief system held in particular context” (Carson et al., 2001:16). In this view, realities are socially and experientially constructed as multiple entities based on particular contexts (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Unlike realism, the existence of multiple perceptions about reality within constructionism does not mean that these realities can be used for triangulation, or any other sort of generalisation. Instead, constructionism explains the nature of reality by individuals’ perceptions being their own realities, therefore, it is not possible to evaluate these perceptions to reach one ultimate and unique reality (Peter, 1992).

In particular, this study addresses epistemological and ontological issues with regard to ‘constructionism’. The main reason for this choice is that constructionism is useful when research aims to understand how consumers perceive the research subject (Carson et al., 2001), and it complies with the worldview of the researcher (see Section 6.2.3). That is, in this study, reality is regarded as how individuals perceive their online behaviours, and

101

understanding reality is possible through observing individuals’ constructions of the meanings of their online behaviours.

As the terminology of research philosophies is not consistent in the literature, different views of constructionism are associated with discrete perspectives, which therefore involve different aspects of epistemology and ontology (Potter, 1996). Also, another term, ‘constructivism’4 is used for epistemological considerations that focus exclusively on the meaning-making activity of individuals (Crotty, 1998). Additionally, when constructionist approaches are used by different disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, political science and literary studies, different features and focuses might be shaped by the particular discipline (Potter, 1996). Therefore, it is possible to explain and define constructionism differently, but in this research it will be adopted as the philosophical stance that supports the view that all knowledge and meanings are constructed by individuals within one particular context (Crotty, 1998). Since this view covers aspects of both knowledge and meanings about reality, there is no conceptual distinction between epistemology and ontology here.

As stated before, one of the main positions of constructionism is the belief that realities in the world are not discovered, but are constructed by individuals (Crotty, 1998). Hence, “no interpretation of that world can be made independently of human sensations, perceptions, information processing, feelings and actions” (Peter, 1992:74). In other words, without individuals who interpret the world, there will be no any reality or meanings. Therefore, meanings and truth, as in the findings of a study, cannot be described as objective facts, but they can be presented as the interpretations of individuals (i.e. the researcher of a study).

4 _{Crotty (1998) explains constructivism as an epistemological stance that focuses on ‘meaning-making’ activity}

of individuals whereas constructionism is a broader position that includes ontological considerations and is also interested in ‘meaning’ itself.

102

Therefore, constructionist studies present a particular version of the reality in a particular context instead of definitive and generalisable results.

Constructionism examines the intangible mental constructions of individuals that create multiple realities (Carson et al., 2001). Guba and Lincoln (1994) explain that even though constructionist studies aim toward a consensus of research results, findings are always open to new and different interpretations, especially with different levels of sophistication of researchers or with the existence of different social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender factors of researchers. At the end, there is no one true, valid or better interpretation; but useful, liberating, fulfilling and rewarding interpretations (Crotty, 1998). Moreover, these interpretations are subject to continuous change, as there are always new and/or different constructions by researchers (Peter, 1992).

Constructionism believes that meanings and truth are constructions that refer to a particular belief system held in a particular context (Carson et al., 2001), and the aim is the understanding of the constructions of these meanings (Crotty, 1998). Therefore, knowledge created through research depends on the interaction of individuals and the researcher (Carson et al., 2001). Researchers do not discover meanings (i.e. findings), but become more aware of individuals’ constructions though their observations and comparison of their own and participants’ constructions (Hirschman, 1986; Carson et al., 2001): the relationship of the researcher and participants is blurred due to the co-creation of meanings (i.e. findings).