Critical Realist Philosophy

Critical Realist Philosophy

by Isabell Daniels -
Number of replies: 5
Summary: Assumptions and Methods in Critical Realist Philosophy
Critical Realism is a research paradigm that assumes a stratified, objective reality, shaped by complex and often unobservable causal mechanisms.
 
Ontologically, it posits that reality exists independently of our perceptions, but our understanding of it is limited and influenced by underlying structures (e.g., social systems or institutions) and agents. This stands in contrast to positivist approaches, which often overlook cultural and societal influences.
 
Epistemologically, Critical Realism acknowledges the fallibility of knowledge. Understanding is context-dependent and shaped by social and individual factors. Researchers are thus encouraged to reflect critically on their assumptions and the socio-historical conditions shaping their perspectives.
 
Axiologically, Critical Realism challenges the notion of value-free research. Values inevitably influence topic selection and interpretation. Research is seen as a structured, iterative process in which the researcher's insights and competencies play a central role.
 
Methodologically, Critical Realism promotes methodological pluralism. It encourages a thoughtful selection of methods based on the research question, acknowledging that different methods—qualitative and quantitative—can be appropriate. Emphasis is placed on uncovering deeper causal mechanisms and power structures.
 
Suggested methods include grounded theory, abduction, retroduction, and contrastive explanation, often combined through triangulation to handle the complexity of open social systems.
In reply to Isabell Daniels

Re: Critical Realist Philosophy

by Finn Aaron Convent -
This reads like the middle ground between the other two philosophies.
In reply to Finn Aaron Convent

Re: Critical Realist Philosophy

by Leah Plawker -
I agree with this as well. It seems as though critical realism attempts to be objective while recognizing that achieving complete objectivity may not be realistic. This seems like a very effective way to look at research because non biased data is important to understand the way certain institutions function, but there can also be a recognition that not all reality is the same and individual perceptions play a role as well. I do also believe that mixed methods are a very effective way to research. In my opinion, the use of quantitative research and qualitative research produces the most accurate results for a research study.
In reply to Isabell Daniels

Re: Critical Realist Philosophy

by Madeleine Sullivan -
I agree with Finn's comment - the critical realist approach seems precisely a mix between positivism and interpretivism. A solely positivist approach falls short in its refusal to reckon with social systems and cultural influences, while the interpretivist approach avoids any one " objective truth", so it seems critical realism steps in to attempt to reconcile these approaches. It seems critical realism's embrace of methodological pluralism could be fruitful, yet I am reminded of Schwartz-Shea's comments on mixed-method approaches: "However, the coherence of a mixed-methodologies (i.e., applied philosophies) study can be challenged. How, or why,
would a researcher simultaneously endorse a realist and a constructivist ontology of language? How, or why, would one simultaneously claim that researcher identity is irrelevant (applying a plethora of methods to avoid bias) and that it is inevitable (therefore actively reflecting on how identity affects the research)? Most importantly, the choice of philosophy matters because, as Table 14.1 emphasizes, methodology as applied philosophy means conducting research in distinctive
ways." (144).

Perhaps these concerns are not relevant in the context of the critical-realist approach, but does its embrace of mixed methods raise similar concerns?
In reply to Madeleine Sullivan

Re: Critical Realist Philosophy

by Carla Emilia Canovi -
I think there is validity in questioning critical realism's embrace of methodological pluralism. Critical realisms attempts to find balance between acknowledging the bias created from social contexts and avoiding ambiguity created from interpretivist approaches, however is this truly possible in practice? It seems that arguing that there is one true reality which is possible to uncover through critical reflection while also arguing that knowledge is socially constructed is contradictory.
In reply to Madeleine Sullivan

Re: Critical Realist Philosophy

by Jessica Palka -
This is a relevant question to raise Maddie.
I would say that it very much depends on the epistemological framing of a specific project but that, in general, critical realism will more likely align with a rather post-positivist position (relaxing strict objectivity requirements, while trying to minimise bias) or a rather interpretivist position (reflexively investigating and communicating the socially constructed context in which the research is produced). So, while various projects can share the ontological belief of an objective reality with generative mechanisms, methodologically they would differ -- while still being internally consistent -- with a rather interpretivist or post-positivist emphasis. It likely depends on the phenomena under investigation, the research question and goal (e.g. understanding macro, generalisable patterns vs. micro, contextual practices).