The document summarizes ten research perspectives: postpositivism, pragmatism, constructivism, critical theory, interpretivism, race/gender/ethnicity theories, queer theory, critical race theory, and art-based research. These perspectives differ in their views of truth, from postpositivism's view that absolute truths cannot be known, to pragmatism focusing on practical consequences, to constructivism believing truth is subjective. Critical theory and interpretivism both emphasize power relations and critique of ideologies. Race/gender/ethnicity, queer theory and critical race theory acknowledge marginalization but differ in their specific focuses. Art-based research uses art to communicate research findings.

1. Kyle Guzik Summary and Discussion on Research Perspectives February 13, 2017
This response will summarize ten perspectives on research: postpositivism; pragmatism, constructivism;
critical theory; interpretivism; race, gender, and ethnicity; queer theory; critical race theory, and art-based
research. The summary will focus primarily on the ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and values,
that are specific to each perspective. These paradigms can then be categorized along an alethiological range
to demonstrate that the most meaningful distinction between them concerns their claims regarding the
nature of truth.
It is useful to begin with definitions for the four main criteria used to summarize each perspective in its
relationship to truth. Ontology is the study of the nature of being, existence, and reality. For the purpose
of this summary, I will focus on ontological reality claims surrounding each perspective. Epistemology
concerns the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. Some distinctions between what is
true and what is known can be interrogated via phenomenology, the study of subjective experience and
consciousness. Methodology concerns the manner by which one acquires knowledge and truth. One
component of methodology which concerns the nature of truth is hermeneutics, or interpretation. Finally,
values concern aesthetics, morality, and other criteria for judgement of truth and its use.
In the postpositivist perspective there are no absolute truths or certain foundations upon which knowledge
may be rest. Postpositivists claim that science can no longer be completely grounded in the rationalist and
empiricist epistemologies found in positivism. However, physical and sociological laws exist, although
they can only be determined imperfectly. It is not possible to collect all evidence required to make a claim
with absolute certainty. Even if this was possible, our interpretation of this data could be flawed; we could
create a model compatible with this evidence but which incorrectly explains or conceptualizes the
phenomenon. This is an argument against universalism. Truth claims can be developed rationally with
incomplete evidence. Causal relationships exist in the physical, biological, human, and social realms of the
real world. Postpositivists warn against confirmatory bias, the tendency of researchers to look for evidence
and make interpretations that support what they already believe to be true. Researchers much conduct open
inquiry and make their research available for inspection and criticism by others. Research impacts the lives
of others and must be trustworthy.
Pragmatism can be considered a theory of meaning that focuses on the consequences of events and actions.
Truth and reality give way to warranted assertions. Pragmatists pay attention to the sociology of knowledge,
how knowledge is constructed, questioned, refined, and encoded. Pragmatism shares the postmodern
concern regarding the influence of language upon knowledge. When evaluating a study, in addition to
asking if the conclusions are warranted, if the field investigated is advanced or harmed by the study, and
what has been learned, pragmatists ask if the vocabulary used to describe the study is appropriate and if this
language could block change or innovation. Pragmatists also judge research based upon who benefits from
it, if it hurts or could harm anyone, and if its subject has been or should be discussed. Pragmatists care
about power structures and how knowledge is promoted and contested in society. For this reason they
promote care theory, the idea that researchers must consider whether their studies harm their participants,
and whether the interventions they implement establish, maintain, enhance or damage caring relationships.
Pragmatism compares favorably with ethical perspectives which focus on empowering research subjects,
contemplation on the nature of consent to be studied, and, at a minimum avoidance of harm.
The concept of constructivism has numerous definitions and contexts. Lincoln (2005) defines
constructivism: “in its simplest terms … an interpretive stance which attends to the meaning making
activities of active agents and cognizing human beings.” Constructivists believe that constructions, the
products of individual subjective interpretation of sensory data, are critical to sociology, explaining, as
much as physical and temporal events, the interactions of individuals and/or groups. Constructivists
develop metaphysical arguments by defining an ontology, an epistemology, a methodology, and an

2. axiology, a claim regarding the relationship of value and valuation to inquiry. Constructivists adopt a
bifurcated ontology in which two realities exist, a physical/temporal reality, and a constructed reality
composed of interpretations of sensory data. Constructivists also create parallel epistemologies, knowledge
can be derived from rational and experimental sources, but additional theories of knowledge also exist
including cultural, colonial, feminist, racial, queer, disabled, and other subaltern forms of knowing.
Constructivists can use quantitative research methods, but qualitative research methods are particularly
useful in constructivism, for example when studying narratives. Constructivists believe that values are
inherent to all human activities so axiology must be part of the research process.
Two perspectives with significant commonalities are critical theory and interpretvism. Critical theory
concerns power relations and ideology. Critical theorists critique research and search for the interactions
between power and research claims, validity claims, culture, and thought. Noblit (2005) defines critical
theory as “critique of ideology”. An axiom of interpretivism is that “all attempts to represent reality are
mediated by language” (Bochner, 2005). This idea resembles the linguistic turn found in pragmatism.
Investigators are morally responsible for the creative value and inscribed meanings of their texts.
Interpretive social science employs critiques such as scientism, an argument against excessive
reductionism. Humans create narratives about life, placing their experiences within an intelligible frame.
Like critical theorists, interpretivists resist attempts to silence subaltern voices.
There are commonalities between the race, gender and ethnicity, queer theory (QT) , and critical race theory
(CRT) perspectives and some notable differences. These perspectives acknowledge that subaltern
populations exist in society and that their marginalization by a dominant or hegemonic culture is a problem.
So there is a consistency in values. Methodology is also important in these perspectives as there is a focus
on inclusivity. For example, there is inadequate research on the challenges trans youth of color face in
academic environments so researchers must attempt to study this and other underserved subpopulations and
should direct their work toward ameliorating the extant historical inequalities. It may be a mistake to look
for ontological and epistemological consistency across all queer theorists, critical race theorists, theories of
gender, etc. as the focus is on shared values regarding social justice; there are feminist critiques of post-
colonialism; there are LGBTQ critiques of constructivism. However, a concept of gender and race as
socially constructed, a pragmatic study of power structures, and an acknowledgement of inherent bias in
human beings, are useful when critiquing normalization and the influence of cultural hegemony on
researchers and scientific research in education.
Arts based educational research (ABER) is a form of inquiry which favors the arts over the scientific
method. Research can be conducted as art making and communication of findings can be presented without
verbal language. Arts based researchers search for certainty (absolute truth) non-dependent upon individual
subjective experience as well as meaning. ABER proposes that artists cannot deny their own experiential
viewpoint (rejection of authorship) and this is useful for finding new questions when the created texts are
read. Alethiological critiques of ABER texts regard judgement and aesthetics because they are dependent
upon the subjective interpretations of viewers.
The most meaningful distinction I see among these perspectives is how they may be organized on a
conceptual range regarding the nature of truth. The hardest concept of truth I can currently imagine states
that there is a universe (or multiverse) that exists objectively and contains, in one negligible region, all
human subjective individual and collective or socially mediated phenomenology, but is not influenced by
this, or language, consciousness, interpretation, prayer, etc. except via physical time space interactions,
which can be studied via reductionism for the purpose of developing chains of causality. Objective
universal truths cannot always be known or do not always exist (for example when a hypothesis is not
testable or non-falsifiable) but they do exist and can be perceived readily as in basic arithmetic operations.
This view recognizes that others exist and that the external world exists. Cartesian demons are self-
contradictory and do not exist. Faith does not exist. I suppose this could be described as positivism in

3. sociology. I would describe it as a rational, naturalistic worldview free from spirituality and mysticism.
This alethiological perspective seeks the simplest explanation for all phenomena (reductionism). The
foundation of what one knows to be true (epistemology) is based on the available evidence and is subject
to change when new evidence is demonstrated via reason to provide a superior explanation for a given
phenomenon. The study of education may be considered a science related to many others including
economics, anthropology, and neurobiology. The primary use of philosophy is to adapt culture to new
scientific and technological developments.
From this vantage point I perceive the perspectives above as variously soft regarding the nature of truth.
Interpretivism is weakest with its notions of language mediated reality. We can see this in the term
scientism, which is constructed to resemble the term racism, replacing race with science. Scientism is an
anti-concept, a rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate a legitimate concept (science).
Truth as narrative is also weak. Like Ayn Rand, one may make claims about truth and support them with
logical fallacies such appeals to emotion, egotism, or disgust, and the use of straw men to write or speak
with conviction and with the goal of persuading or convincing rather than proving. Constructivism seems
somewhat stronger as it acknowledges the existence of the physical world in parallel to one’s internal
phenomenological experience and interpretations. Pragmatism, with its focus on consequences mimics the
use of reductionism to develop models of causal change. Postpositivism is a naturalistic world view,
although it denies the existence of universal truths, it is the hardest of the research perspectives summarized.
ABER appears to include multiple contradictory propositions regarding truth. This is not necessarily a
problem. ABER describes artist-researchers as in search of certainty, which to me requires universal
absolutes (positivism) or axioms (postpostivism). Yet if a researcher conducts research as art and presents
the results of this research as art the resulting product can be arbitrary and is generated dependent on the
specific decisions and intentionality of the artist. This contradicts ABER’s apparent rejection of authorship
of texts.
I also suggest a decoupling of the morality and values apparent in QT, CRT, and other theories of gender,
race, ethnicity, identity and the subaltern from a specific stance on the nature of truth. I understand that
gender and race are social constructs. I agree that terrible harms caused by dominant cultures via hegemony
and normalization on historically marginalized subpopulations must be acknowledged, addressed, and
repaired. I agree that individuals and subpopulations must be valued and celebrated both for what makes
them unique and for the qualities all individuals and collectives share in equality with all of humankind. It
may be possible to dissect QT or CRT arguments to make claims concerning the nature of truth but social
justice is the primary concern and defining characteristic of these perspectives. It is unclear to me what
epistemological and alethiological stances most efficiently advance the goals of these perspectives. Also
ambiguous, critical theory does not appear to be grounded in a specific perspective on the nature of truth.
Its primary concerns are power relations and ideology and the use of these concepts for social justice.
Summary of the ten perspectives on research described above has helped me to clarify my own views
regarding the nature of truth. An understanding of ontology, epistemology, methodology, alethiology, and
axiology adds nuance to the search for commonalities and differences among and between these
perspectives. Description of the nature of truth seems unimportant in some perspectives, in others,
contradictory. Of the perspectives summarized, interpretivsm seems softest and post-positivism hardest if
placed on a range regarding the existence, absolutism, and universality of truth. These distinctions are
meaningful in that worldviews adopted by particular individuals and collectives materially influence our
society and culture. Worldviews grounded in faith are perhaps the softest alethiological perspectives and
can lead to irrational decisions based on ephemeral evidence and then to arbitrary consequences. These
ideologies are less likely to enable prediction and prevention of the potential dangers of a given decision
because they are not based on observable data. In an unlit room one might as easily walk into a wall as
through a door. Philosophies seem to resemble theology as they grow softer regarding the nature of truth.