Rethinking the Definition and Role of Ontology in Political Science
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| Author | Liam Stanley |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2012.01431.x |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Research and Analysis |
Research and Analysis
Rethinking the Definition and Role of
Ontology in Political Scienceponl_143193..99
Liam Stanley
University of Birmingham
Ontological reflexivity is consistently posited as an important part of being a political scientist, yet
the relevant literature has been criticised for being both complex and confused. In this context, the
article has three aims: to clarify the purpose of ontology in the discipline; to highlight how
ontological assumptions cannot be separated from other factors; and to show the relevance of
ontological reflexivity. While the extant literature implies that such assumptions emerge from
philosophical reflection, this article shows how epistemological decisions, mundane interests and
political orientation can be just as important. Consequently, the original aims of the literature can
be reinstated.
Discussions regarding the role and purpose of ontology are becoming increasingly
prominent within political science (e.g. Bates and Jenkins, 2007; Hay, 2006 and
2007; Pleasants, 2009). Within this literature, the concept is often problematically
defined in terms relating to ‘the character of the world as it actually is’ (Hall, 2003,
p. 374) with ontological reflexivity posited as an important component of being a
political scientist (e.g. Hay, 2002, p. 64). Ontological assumptions have been shown
to be important because they influence the explanations they underpin. Yet from
where do such assumptions emerge? Why do political scientists assume the things
they do about social and political reality? While the relevant literature does not
ask these questions directly, it is implied that ontological assumptions should be
reflected upon via engagement with conceptualisations of ontological dualisms,
such as structure–agency and ideational–material. Yet with these conceptual refine-
ments becoming increasingly abstract and complex there is some disquiet over the
saliency and utility of ontological reflexivity. While some practically minded politi-
cal scientists may consider ontology ‘best left to pseuds corner’ (see Bale, 2006,
p. 102), other researchers brand the literature as confused (Bates and Jenkins,
2007) and philosophically inaccurate (Pleasants, 2009, p. 886). These two views of
the literature as both pretentious and muddled hardly provide a glowing reference.
It is perhaps understandable, then, why some political scientists are yet to be
convinced by the claim that ‘ontology matters’ (Hay, 2006, p. 79). In this context,
this article has three main aims: first, to clarify the definition and purpose of
ontology in political science; second, to highlight how ontological assumptions
cannot be separated from other institutional, disciplinary or normative concerns;
and third, to highlight how ontology can be relevant to political scientists.
This article comprises two further substantial sections. The first aims to define
ontology and elaborate on the role of ontological reflexivity in the discipline. The
bs_bs_banner
POLITICS: 2012 VOL 32(2), 93–99
© 2012 The Author.Politics © 2012 Political Studies Association
To continue reading
Request your trial