The Third Pole: Journal of Geography 83

Vol. 20 - 21: 83-100, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/ttp.v21i01.41620
Department of Geography Education,
Central Department of Education, T.U., Kathmandu, Nepal

IMPLICATIONS OF KEY PHILOSOPHICAL

ASSUMPTIONS AND PARADIGMS IN
GEOGRAPHY TEACHING AND RESEARCH

Kanhaiya Sapkota1 Narayan Prasad Paudyal

Abstract
Geography has had limited interchange with the implications of major philosophical
assumptions and paradigms in geographical education and research methodology.
This paper claims a closer engagement with the philosophical arguments on ontology,
epistemology, and axiology as well as the research and teaching strategies or paradigms.
It is adopted and has much to offer to geography, not least in providing a showground
within which very different types of geographical inquiry i.e., qualitative and quantitative,
may find some common ground for helpful discussion and debate in geographic research.
Nevertheless, this will only be fully accomplished if geography enters on: (1) studies
that develop and arrange clear positivist ideas and concepts within the particular
geographic research; (2) studies that attempt to relate geographic research to the
broader realm of the constructionism/ interpretivism tradition; and (3) examination of
the link of the geographic research with the pragmatism. The contemporary revival of
geographic paradigm is described, together with its impacts on research and teaching
methodology in geography. The prevailing literature on geographical rendezvous with
positivism is then examined, and it is claimed that there is a single reality, which can
be measured and known. Therefore, they are more likely to use quantitative methods
to measure the fact. Likewise, constructivist believe that there is no single reality or
truth. Thus, existence need to be interoperated, and consequently they are more likely to
use qualitative methods to get those multiple realities. Pragmatism has much broader
relevance within both physical and human geography, not linked to particular research
styles. It believes that truth or reality is constantly negotiated, debated, interpreted and
therefore, the best method to use is to solve the problem or explores the truth or fact.
Keywords: Ontology, epistemology, axiology, metaphysics, philosophical assumption,
pragmatism, positivism, constructivism.

1 Dr. Sapkota is a Associate Professor, Central Department of Geography Education, T.U.

email: [email protected].,
2. Dr. Paudyal is a Professor, Central Department of Geography Education, T.U.
email: [email protected]
 84 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

Introduction
In the past, there had been very a limited interactions and discussions on the implications
of major philosophical assumptions and paradigms in geographical education and its
research methodology (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2006). However, currently,
geography is characterized by a great deal of lively debate, which focuses not so much
on its subject matter as on its philosophy, but its orientation to its subject matter as well
(Johnston, 1984; 1986). Much more than was so in the 70's decade, geographers are
being exposed to debate within philosophy, as they refer to the natural and the social
sciences (Couper, 2015). The foundation of the geographical study is excavated with
the relevant and genuine questions always expected to address by the geographers. For
instance, what are the goals of geographic research? How can these be achieved? And
so on.

The philosophical autopsy always raised in geographic research. What is the nature of
philosophy? It is not an easy task to define academically. However, it is pretty interesting
to define by two significant ways, either by pointing towards specific “objects” or
“methods” (Suchet-Pearson, Wright, Lloyd and Burarrwanga, 2013). Regarding the
concept of “objects” which is about what is the discipline is about, and the “methods”
deals with about how we do or conduct research in our domain or how do we do
philosophy and how do we philosophies them. Thus, what is the object of philosophy,
or what is the philosophy? Now it's not immediately clear what philosophy is about
because philosophy does not have a similar conspicuous object. The term “philosophy”
is derived from Greek, where “philo” means love and “sophy” means knowledge or
understanding. Thus, it is known as the love of wisdom or friendship of wisdom. Again,
it does not reflect the explicit meaning of philosophy in academia.

The Philosophy that implies, or signifies in geography is that subfield of broad

philosophical ideas, which deals with metaphysical, epistemological and axiological
issues in geography with geographic methodology in general and with more broadly
related issues such as the perception and representation of space in place (Bortolotti,
2008). However, methodological issues concerning geographical knowledge have
been debated for centuries. Richard Hartshorne is often created with its first primary
systematic treatment in English the nature of geography. A critical assessment of current
thought in the light of the past, which appeared in 1939 and promoted several volumes
of critical essays in subsequent decades (Hartshorne, 1939).

Now, what is the object of metaphysics? Metaphysics deals with the existence or looking
for the answers about what is real. Metaphysics is concerned about what is real and what
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 85
does it mean to “be”? It seems that it is an abstract question. For example, metaphysis
wonders what it means to be human. Metaphysics is extremely important in philosophy
because it gives basic principles of our philosophical worldview. Metaphysics looks
at what is real and the purpose and meaning of what is presented to students. It is “the
study of the nature of ultimate reality” (Gutek, 2014, p. 5). It gives us the foundation
of understanding about everything. Thus, it is known as the first philosophy. Aristotle
initially divided metaphysics into three main sections and these remain the main
branches of metaphysics:

●● Ontology (the study of being and existence, including the definition, and
classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the
nature of change);
●● Natural theology (the study of God, including the nature of religion and the world,
existence of the divine, questions about the creation, and the various other religious
or spiritual issues); and
●● Universal science (the study of first principles of logic and reasoning, such as the
law of non-contradiction)

In doing so, it tries to integrate several spheres of discussion, which are typically
separated. Geographers have usually seen fit to discuss ontology, epistemology, axiology,
and methodology in isolation from the philosophy and object of the discipline (Harvey,
1969). A similar situation appeared in the geography scholars in Nepalese academia in
the past. After the building of nation-state, the domestic geography made an outstanding
achievement. Nevertheless, the philosophical research and high-level theoretical research
in geography is consistently lagged within the academic circle. Thus, it seems that the
intellectual poverty of geography appeared for a long time in the country. After 1990,
few scholars attempted to strengthen the discussion, and innovation of geographical
methods and philosophical and theoretical research in geography (Subedi, 2014), and
some researchers have engaged in discussion of geographical methods and inevitable
progress has been made (Koirala, 2008; 2010; Subedi, 2014; Sapkota, 2019).

Even though the application of philosophical assumptions on geographic research in

Nepal is still generally holdups behind as a whole, examining the metaphysics in a broad
sense and ontology in a specific sagacity, epistemology, and axiology of geography
is still not taken seriously. Another serious problem is that some of the contemporary
scholars in geography have a lack of interest to link the philosophical assumptions and
research paradigms. It reflects the poor development of philosophical implications in
geographic research in Nepal. It indicates the lack of ideas/knowledge about the vital
significance of geographical philosophy in their research works (Foucault, 1972; 1979;
 86 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

1980). Therefore, this paper aims to explore the implications of vital philosophical
assumptions and paradigms in geographic research.

Methodology and ontology of geography: Ontology is a branch of philosophy

(metaphysics) that studies the nature of human beings' existence as individuals, in
society, and the universe. Who are we? What are we here for? Ontology is a sub-branch
of metaphysics, which deals with the study of being and existence or reality. In general
terms, ontology is more specific than metaphysics. Ontology beliefs about reality;
different kinds of research are initiated on various assumptions about what we believe
truth or reality. Do we think that truth even exists? What is true? What we think reality
is the well-shaped and what we believe we can know about reality. That is why it is vital
to understand when we are learning about and commenting on the research.

Ormston, Spencer, Barnard, and Snape (2014) proclaim that ontology concerns the
question of “whether or not there is a social reality that exists independently from
human conceptions and interpretations and, closely related to this, whether there is a
shared social reality or only multiple, context-specific ones” (p.4).

Science or knowledge and philosophical reasoning hold comparative perspectives that

logical exploration requires philosophical direction or counsel, consideration, and a
metaphysical foundation ((Foucault, 1972; 1979; 1980; Rosenberg, 2012). In this regard,
Wittgenstein (1996) already underscored that the essential objective of philosophy is to
explain thought logically and definite. Then, geographers discerned the importance of
philosophical assumptions as part of their everyday lives or their academic discourses.
For instance, Hill (1981) brought up that “all researches are guided by the philosophical
belief, which impacts or initiates the selection of the research topic and method to
complete the research with constant evolution. In short, the philosophical issues permeate
into all aspects of the geographical research.” Therefore, the geographical methodology
is always a core content of geographical philosophy (Johnston, 1984).

Immanuel Kant examined the knowledge system and nature of geography very early and
proposed the field of geography as "science about space." It was the philosophical ideas
that formed the geographical methodology of the successive geographers Hettner and
Hartshorne (see Holt-Jensen, 2006) to some extent. It was the beginning of systematic
philosophical research into geography. Later on, the philosophy of geography maturing
and influencing, a dispute between the methodologies of Hartshorne (1959) and Shaefer
(1953) appeared, which initiated a quantitative revolution aimed at theorization.
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 87
Due to several disagreements throughout the entire history of geography, which
encouraged the contemporary scholars to advance of geographical ideas, philosophies,
and improved geographical way of thinking (Liu, Tang, Liu, and Qin, 2017). Then,
different scholars have discussed and examined the importance of philosophical
understanding and its relationship with the methodology in geographic research. Schaefer
(1953) hypothesized that “methodology properly deals with the position and scope of
the field within the total system of the sciences and with the character and nature of its
concepts.” Johnston (1986) suggested that methodology is “a set of rules and procedures
indicating how the research and argument go in the discipline,” while Marinopoulou
(2018) proposed that methodology is the conscientization of the method.

After realizing the importance of philosophies and methodologies in geographic

research, scholars from the discipline started on the complete ontological framework.
Geographers, like Harvey (1969), suggested, “Only to select a methodology with
logical coherence cannot solve the geographical problems and more things or more
appropriate geographical philosophies are required.” He further argued that without
proper or appropriate philosophical assumptions, it is almost impossible to make better
methodological decisions in geographic research.

In Nepal, the geographical philosophy was discussing only the framework of

epistemology and methodology, which entombed some scholars in a misinterpretation
and misjudgment of geographical philosophy as epistemology and methodology in a
narrow sense. Therefore, examining the ontology of geography is helpful for scholars to
understand geographical philosophy fully, systematically develop it, and provide new
dimensions and paths for the theoretical development of geography.

Regarding the ontological philosophical assumption possesses the question, geography

scholars intend to answer. “What is the nature of being, reality, and existence? What can
be known about it?” Both qualitative and quantitative research has differently addressed
those issues because of their philosophical root or assumptions. Qualitative researchers
tend to answer these questions by saying at their multiple realities are held by each
person, and the truth or a reality is subjective.

Similarly, there is no access to reality independent of our minds. In practice, the

qualitative researchers believe in using the words of participants in quotes and themes
to show differing perspectives. Whereas quantitative researchers tend to answer the
ontological question by saying that the reality is objective, that is, one reality, and reality
can be described as independent of human perceptions. Thus, in practice, quantitative
 88 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

researchers show this by collecting complex data through surveys and observations and
using numbers and statistics to show what is reality going on reality.

Methodology and Epistemology of geography: Epistemology is the crucial

philosophical standpoint of the study of knowledge; its nature, its requirements, and its
limitation…what is knowledge, and how people know whether they know something
((Foucault, 1972; 1979; Bonjour, 2002). It is about the knowledge of reality, or it
corresponds to the reality, which the researchers think. All research comes with the
view of knowledge or what is knowable or worth knowing. Knowledge is the facts,
information, and skills acquired through experience or education, the theoretical or
practical understanding of a subject (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2006). It could
be said in more straightforward terms as to how knowledge and how knowledge is
understood (Shotwell, 2014). Therefore, a branch of philosophy is about knowledge or
learning. Knowledge is already out there, just waiting to be discovered (Foucault, 1972;
1979; 1980). Thus, it is our responsibility to uncover this universal, unchanging, and
absolute truth.

The word epistemology comes from ancient Greek episteme, meaning to know. It is a
decision and a debate leading to a decision about what is knowable and worth knowing,
or it is a debate about what knowledge is. Therefore, epistemology is simply the
“ology” of knowledge. It is any debate about what it is to know in your field. Therefore,
philosophically speaking is the study of how we know things and whether things are
true or false. Similarly, what steps do we need to take to gain knowledge of the world.

Epistemology senses the bridge between thinking and reality. It deals with what do
we know? How do we know it? In addition, why is that knowledge meaningful? So,
one big question that epistemology would consider is whether something is logical
or not? Alternatively, can we prove using reasoning at a certain point? Therefore, it
is imperative in the study of philosophy, which links with the research methodology.
Thus, an epistemology or theory of knowledge is governed by two crucial elements in
geographic research or philosophical standpoints, such as truth and belief. When we say
we have the origin of knowledge, we know that what is the scope of that knowledge,
the validity of the knowledge, the various sources from which we gather the knowledge
we understand how and what is the ambit's of understanding this knowledge and that's
what does epistemology.

There are three categories of knowledge discussed as follows: procedural knowledge,

propositional knowledge, and personal knowledge.
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 89
Procedural knowledge is about teaching students to do specific tasks, especially
concerning hands-on learning, thus allowing the opinion for the students to retain
propositional knowledge about those skills. Following on from procedural knowledge,
propositional knowledge is the knowledge possessed by students on how to do certain
things learned from the previous procedural knowledge phase. On the other hand,
personal knowledge comes from previous personal experiences, which allows the
individual to gain knowledge about a subject. They then can use this knowledge to assist
them with procedural knowledge (Foucault, 1972; 1979).

Regarding the exploration of knowledge or reality, geography is organized into two

related strands. Both are interrelated, and help to produce proper geographical reality
or truth. However, geographical knowledge refers to the generalizations, principles,
theories and models developed in geography, whereas geographical understanding
is the ability to see the relationships between aspects of knowledge and construct an
explanatory framework to illustrate these relationships (Couper, 2015; Sapkota, 2019).
Likewise, geographical analysis and skills are a process by which students learn about
and deepen their understanding of geographic knowledge.

Both explorations of reality or knowledge support the geography curriculum and teaching
as well as research philosophically. The enhance of the geography curriculum, it helps
to formulate a question, and research plan, recording and data representation skills,
use a variety of spatial technologies, and communicate with appropriate geographical
vocabulary. Similarly, students' passion for geographical learning should be stirred by
a wide variety of activities for example, field trips, interpretation of remotely sensed
images, application of GIS and GPS in the field data, use ethnographic methods, reading
literary accounts of places, etc. to help them to figure out the geographical inquiry and
investigation (Tang, 2010). Learning activities should also emphasize the ability to
understand, explain, appreciate and use knowledge rather than simply reproduce it. The
learning of skills should be made meaningful by using them to answer the questions or
communicate information, which will help to connect the two strains of the curriculum
as above stated (Kitchin and Tate, 2013).

Scholars involved in the philosophical discourse suggested that the epistemological

approaches most flagrantly highlighted in meta-theoretical deliberations are those
associated with positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, poststructuralism/
postmodernism, and pragmatism (e.g., Crotty, 1998; Tsoukas and Chia, 2011; Tsoukas
and Knudsen, 2013). These philosophical viewpoints are based on a very idiosyncratic
set of epistemological assumptions.
 90 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

Positivism advocates the set of philosophical ideas known as positivism that has long
been associated with ‘scientific’ geography and has been a focus for much debate in the
discipline (Couper, 2015). Comte’s positivism and Vienna Circle’s logical positivism
provided the backdrop to the quantitative revolution in geography. It is the scientific,
objective knowledge is based on observable, measurable facts, and claims that it can
predict future events are its epistemological understanding (Donaldson, 1997; 2003).
Whereas critical realism offers ‘epistemological relativism,’ meaning various types of
data and methods are seen as acceptable, although critical realist often takes the form of
a retrodictive, historical analysis (Reed, 2005; Bernstein, 1983). Proponents of critical
realism also acknowledge that theories and knowledge never offer entirely specific
knowledge and that ‘social facts’ are different from ‘physical facts,’ but that researchers
should try to be as objective, and realistic as they can (Bhaskar, 1986; Fleetwood,
2005).

Interpretivism suggests that theories and concepts are inexorably too simplistic to
represent the full lushness of the social world. Therefore, the greater the assortment
of interpretations, stories and narratives as well as historical context factors that
researchers can gather, the newer understandings (knowledge) they can create through
their research (Isaeva, Bachmann, Bristow, Saunders, 2015; Crotty, 1998; Hatch and
Yanow, 2003). Poststructuralism/postmodernism emphasizes and seeks to examine the
role of dominant political ideologies in the constructing of what is generally known as
‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ and ‘facts’ (Habermas, 1967).

Therefore, knowledge is considered ‘deconstructive,’ enquiring and challenging

conventional discourses (Chia 2003; Luhman & Cunliffe 2013). Postmodernists aim
to be radically reflexive and apply critical inspection to their role as researchers in co-
producing the knowledge they study (Cunliffe, 2003). In contrast, pragmatism focuses
on seeking, through various methods and their combination, helpful knowledge that
enables successful action, providing solutions to problems, and informing future practice
(Dewey, 1977; Elkjaer and Simpson, 2011). In this perspective, the social world is seen
as a constant stream of action, of which the researcher is simply a part.

Regarding an epistemological assumption poses the question …. “What is truth? What

is real knowledge? What is the relationship between the researcher and what is being
studied?” How do we know what we claim to know? Can we acquire knowledge about
reality? If we can, how do we succeed in inquiring about true, believes, knowledge
about reality?
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 91
Qualitative researchers tend to answer this question by saying that there is no one truth,
but multiple truths or realities subjective to each person. Qualitative researchers want to
gain knowledge of what participants think about the realities. So, in practice, researchers
tried to lessen the distance between themselves and participants; they get into the field
and participate with the participant wherever they are, whatever they are doing in life to
gain an understanding of the participant's view on their realities. Whereas quantitative
researchers tend to answer this question by saying that there is one truth or single reality
because it is objective and can be studied. The relationship between participants and
researchers is independent. Then, the truth can be studied without influencing or being
influenced by participants. In practice, quantitative researchers show this belief by
collecting data with or without having spent a lot of time with participants to understand
what they think. They can collect data, analyze it, and gain actual knowledge or truth.

Methodology and Axiology of Geography: Axiology is a branch of philosophy that

studies value. They ask questions about the values that guide our research begins. The
word axiology is derived from a Greek word, where “Axios” means worth or value and
“logos” means logic or theory, which deals with the quality or value (Rosenthal and
Yudin, 1967). Jones and Brader-Araje (2005) defined that axiology as the branch of
philosophy that studies judgments about values, including both ethics and aesthetics.
Ethics examines the values in the realm of human conduct (Kneller, 1971). It deals
with such questions as what is suitable for all men. How should one behave? What is
right? What is morally wrong? What do we value? What value should guide or drive our
research? Axiology can guide human life, individual, and social, secular or non-secular,
in the right direction. Likewise, man searches for truth, praises beautiful, and attempts
good. That is the philosophical standpoint of axiology serves as a guide for this purpose
(Nigal, 1986). It talks about ethics and aesthetics as philosophical ideas in human and
physical geography, respectively. Ethics is about behavior, which can act upon reality
and also can influence or change reality. Ethics deals with the difference between right
or wrong. This is the group of theoretical assumptions and arguments about what kinds
of personal actions will maximize human forces and increase human happiness.

Similarly, it is the philosophy of values, which helps us decide to how and for what
purpose these means should be utilized. Kneller (1971) argued about the importance and
the implication of axiology in geographical studies and education. He says that values
are everywhere in education (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2006). In addition to that,
he argues that society and educators evaluate each other based on their respective values,
which they have embedded. Thus, axiology affects why you are learning (motivations,
desire outcomes), what you are learning (dominant cultural practices), and even how
you learn (factual recalls versus learning by doing).
 92 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

Axiological philosophical assumption poses the question …What is the role of values?
How should we behave? These are the basic questions of axiology deals by qualitatively
or quantitatively in geographic research terms.

Qualitative researchers tend to answer this question by saying that reality is subjective
and fact cannot be separated from values. Similarly, things cannot be described as they
are, but only how we perceive them. So, there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, and
values are entrenched in everything. So, the qualitative researchers show this belief by
being upfront in reports about their values and biases. So that the readers can understand
how the researcher is biased on their values and other specific things. On the other hand,
quantitative researchers answer this question by saying that facts can be separated from
values. They are showing it statistically that the research is valid and reliable something
will learn about later and it’s free of value and biases.

Paradigms of Geographic Research: Before to proceeding to address the philosophical

issues, I consider as critical to take note that reporters do not have a reliable method
of alluding to these paradigmatic methodologies. For instance, Tashakkori and Teddlie
(1998) refer to paradigms of logical positivism, post-positivism, pragmatism, and
constructivism, but Guba (1990) detaches positivism from the other three paradigms
emerged as a challenge to it which are positivism, constructivism, and pragmatism. The
point of this segment is to handle the ideas of epistemology and ontology, which support
the three significant contending standards (positivism, constructivism, and pragmatism)
and every one of them will be investigated and applied in the following sections.

Positivism: This worldview or paradigm deal with the truth or knowledge is objective and
that it should be studied by the scientific method and through measuring it numerically
and then analyzing it statistically and carries within the social research judgmental
connotations. Due to its trustiness in the natural science model, many philosophers
and social critics as inadequate in science (Irene, 2014) have considered it. Since the
positivism’s core has placed extreme stress on direct observations, it has been criticized
for ignoring values, informed opinion, moral judgments, and beliefs (Habermas, 1972;
1974; Horkheimer, 1972; Kvernbekk, 2002; Shadish, 1995).

A philosophical perspective, based on realist ontology, proclaims that reality is driven

by absolute natural laws. The role of science is to strive for casual relationships, an
essential criterion for research, which resembles internal validity. Research then
becomes objective, measurable, predictable, and controllable (Irene, 2014). As far as
epistemology is concerned, it is rooted in an objectivist role and to use Guba's words in a
‘dualist’ position for the inquirer adopts a distant, no interactive posture, to his object of
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 93
inquiry. Smith (1983) names this relationship of the knower and the known as a subject-
object relationship to the subject matter. He draws this distinction to highlight the value-
neutrality of the positivist school of thought. Another issue of interest for positivists is
generalizability. They contend that quantitative research is time and context-free. It is
commonly asserted that the positivist approach to research is deductive in that it is tests
and priori hypothesis or theory.

From a methodological point of view, positivism is inclined to the side of experimentation.

Guba and Lincoln (1994) acknowledge this as they impose a top-down research approach.
Since they place ontology at the top of the hierarchy and methodology at the bottom, it
follows that the cause-effect ontological position of positivism constrains research at the
methodological level to the use of empirical tests under carefully controlled conditions
which Cook and Campell (1979) name as the experimental design.

Social-constructivism: Social constructionists acknowledge the influence of philosophers

such as Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx (Galbin, 2014; Andrews, 2012). It is as we
see that cannot be traced to a single source (Burr, 2003). The epistemology of social
constructionism is that reality is socially constructed meaning that people make sense
of the world based on social interactions. Therefore, the social constructivists believe
that the goal of research is to understand participants’ views, their socially constructed
realities, and whatever is being studied. During the mid-1900s, philosophers explained it
as a philosophy that looks how knowledge is created through social interactions (Savin-
Baden and Major, 2013). According to them social constructionism was prejudiced by
several different people at different times and places (Galbin, 2014).

Therefore, social constructionist research focuses on how knowledge develops as a social

construction (Savin-Baden and Major, 2013). It focuses on relationships and examines
the individual’s role in the construction of their realities or truths. Although social
constructionists acknowledge the influence of genetics, they focus on the inspirations
of socialization at both the individual and group levels (Galbin, 2014). In this manner,
social constructivism underscores how meaning and understanding grow out of social
encounters (Vygotsky, 1978). From the Vogotskian viewpoint, social interaction with the
educator and different students is a massive aspect of the learning process. Knowledge
is not exclusively developed inside the individual’s psyche instead, connections inside
a social content involve the student in sharing, constructing, and reproducing their
thoughts/ideas and convictions (beliefs).

In expounding constructivists’ thoughts, Arends (1998) states, that constructivism has

confidence in the personal construction of meaning by the learner through experience.
 94 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

That importance is affected by the communication of earlier information and new

occasions. Therefore, in an epistemological understanding, Galbin (2014) argues that
“social constructionism involves challenging most of our common-sense knowledge of
ourselves and the world we live in” (p. 83). Similarly, Burr (2003) highlights the fact that
social constructionism heartens us to be thoughtful of how we perceive the world. The
things we know about the world are largely based in large part on our social influences
and observations (Irene, 2014). In academic discourse, generally, academicians use
constructivism as a theory for teaching and learning. Because it is an approach to learning
that holds that people actively construct or make their knowledge and that reality is
determined by the learner’s experiences” (Elliott, Kratochwill, Littlefield Cook, and
Travers, 2000, p. 256).

The dawn of constructivism as an authentic paradigm for conducting qualitative research

resulted as a reaction to quantitative methodologists’ effort toward compromise of
positivism and post-positivism. The most well-known qualitative researchers Guba and
Lincoln (1994), plotted out a series of black and white contrasts between positivism and
constructivism to stress their incompatibility. Ontologically speaking, there are multiple
realities constructed by actors of research. Thus, they argue that research is grounded on
a relativist ontology, which rejects the existence of any possible correct reality.

On an epistemological level, they reflect Smith’s (1983) contention that the inquirer
takes a subject-subject posture, whereas facts and values are inextricably linked. Hence,
since the knower and the known are inseparable, research is value-bound. As almost
all naturalists, they align to the belief that research is time, context-bound and that
generalizations are not possible. As far as casual linkages are concerned, they contend
that it is impossible with differentiate causes from effects.

A final principle on constructivism concerns the relationship between theory and

research. As already noted, research-based on constructivism aligns with an emphasis
with inductive logic employing from the particular to the general. From a methodological
point of view, it proceeds hermeneutically by depicting individual construction as
accurately as possible to compare and contrast it dialectically with the aim of reaching
and generating a substantial consensus.

Pragmatism: The primary forms of pragmatism linked too closely with emerging
American liberalism. They set too quickly in opposition to the European philosophies,
including Marxism, that formed the radical edge of social inquiry for much of the 20th
century (Wood and Smith, 2008). It was developed in America after the civil war and
brought about intellectual and social changes up to the Second World War. However,
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 95
in the last quarter-century, the philosophical landscape has changed: big gestures are
being challenged by small acts, the persistence of structures has been unsettled by the
flow of activity, new styles of agonistic democracy aim to remake rather than displace
politics. For this and other reasons, pragmatism was marginalized even in philosophy
and geography for many years. Pragmatism is not committed to any philosophy or way
of thinking about reality or truth or knowledge. It is a philosophical perspective that is
centrally concerned with the construction of meaning through experience. Pragmatists
focus on the research questions or research problems at hand and use whatever research
methods could be used to answer the question or solve that concern. Pragmatists are
focused on practical outcomes of the research to solve the question or problem.

In other words, pragmatism is a philosophy, which asserts that meaning and knowledge
can only be defined in terms of their role the experience. It emphasizes experiences,
experimental inquiry, and truth as criteria for evaluating consequences. Pragmatism
is the “position in philosophy that defines meaning and knowledge in terms of their
function in experience, with reference to adjustment and the resolution of problematic
situations” (Wood and Smith, 2008).

A pragmatist believes that the ‘concrete’ or ‘particular’ situation is essential in finding

scientific knowledge and understanding the world. Accordingly, ‘abstract’ or ‘general’
laws and theories are also important and valuable as ‘guiding principles’ in any scientific
inquiry (National Research Council, 2002). Therefore, pragmatist deals with theoretical
concepts as well as practical situations in their research works. It is precisely what many
geographers have been supporting, and that needs focus for the discipline. Pragmatism
in geography prompted the improvement of applied geography. Specialists and thinkers
concur that human perspectives, interests, desires, biases, and gathering esteems vary in
time and space (Harney, McCurry, Scott, and Wills, 2016). Similarly, for the pragmatist
geographers, spatial laws are substantial, and they give the framework for hypotheses
formulation and data collection (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995).

Here, man is in the centre as communicated by Vidal de La Blache and the French
School of Geography (Sapkota, 2017). Thus, in humanistic geography, man, and science
are accommodated. The chief point of current humanism in geology is the compromise
of sociology and man, to oblige comprehension and insight, objectivity and subjectivity,
and realism and vision.
 96 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

Conclusion
There are different philosophical assumptions and paradigms regarding truth, reality,
knowledge value, writing styles, etc., in geographic research. Researchers should
explore these to determine what they believe and how it could affect their research
methods. This paper has discussed the philosophical routes, i.e., ontology, epistemology,
and axiology as well as their implications in geographic research. The philosophical
standpoints are closely connected with the research methodology, which is relatively
weak in the geographic research in Nepal. The scholars are either neglected or not
interested in entering into this type of philosophical debate in their research activities.
This is a fundamental drawback of academic publications of geography in the country.

The paper contends is that the researcher’s philosophical standpoint does determine
research, but at the same time, research should reflect upon all possible theoretical and
methodological stances. In the case of academic discourses and research activities, the
entanglement of philosophical ideas to research methods becomes necessary. Research
should be about investigating meaning and significance while at the same time being
able to question, predict and control.

Overall, venues for future research regarding the use of critical discourse analysis that
is based on the philosophical understanding may well be concerned with investigating
literature related with the philosophy of all nations and societies in conflict. The existing
literature on geographical research with positivism is then examined, and it is argued
that there is a single reality, which can be measured and known. Therefore, they are
more likely to use quantitative methods to measure the reality. Likewise, constructivist
believe that there is no single reality or truth, and thus reality need to be interpreted, and
therefore they are more likely to use qualitative methods to get those multiple realities.

Pragmatism has much broader relevance within both physical and human geography,
not linked to particular research style. It believes that reality is constantly negotiated,
debated, interpreted and therefore, the best method to use is to solve the problem
or explores reality. Thus, the emancipatory character of the critical discourse ethics
technique and methodology is likely to transform not only discriminatory assumptions
and methodological biases of research, but also our biased notions of the ‘other.’

References
Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review, 11(1),
pp. 39-46.
Arends, R. I. (1998). Resource handbook: Learning to teach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 97
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bernstein, R.J. (1992) The resurgence of pragmatism. Social Research, 59(4), pp. 813–840.
Bhaskar, R. (1986), Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.
Bonjour, L. (2002). Epistemology: Classic problems and contemporary responses. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bortolotti, L. (2008). An introduction to the philosophy of science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bryman, A. (1998). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2004) (2nd ed). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burr, V. (2003). What is social constructionism? Social Constructionism, pp. 1-27. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Chia, R. (2003). Organization theory as a postmodern science. In H. Tsoukas and C.
Knudsen (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical
perspectives, pp. 113-40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2006). Research methods in education. London:
Routledge.
Cook, T. & Campell, D. (1979). Quasi- experimentation: Design and analysis issues for
field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Couper, P. (2015). A student’s introduction to geographical thought: Theories,
philosophies and methodologies. London: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Cunliffe, A.L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and
possibilities. Human Relations, 56 (8), pp. 983-1003.
Dewey, J. (1977). The bearings of pragmatism upon education. In J.A. Boydston (ed.),
Middle works 4, pp. 178-191. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Donaldson, L. (1997). Derek Pugh: Scientific revolutionary in organization studies. In
T. Clark (ed.), Advancement in organizational behaviour: Essays in honour of
Derek S. Pugh, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Donaldson, L. (2003). Organization theory as a positive science. In H. Tsoukas and C.
Knudsen (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical
perspectives, pp. 39-62 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elkjaer, B. and Simpson, B. (2011). Pragmatism: A lived and living philosophy. What
can it offer to contemporary organization theory? In H. Tsoukas and R. Chia
(eds.), Philosophy and organization theory: Research in the sociology of
organizations. Bradford: Emerald Publishing Ltd, 55-84.
Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield Cook, J. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational
psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
College.
 98 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical

realist perspective. Organization, 12 (2), pp. 197-222.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. London: Allen Lane.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-
1977. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Galbin, A. (2014). An introduction to social constructionism. Social Research Reports,
26, pp. 82-92.
Goetz, J. & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research. Orlando, Fl: Academic Press.
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
Denzin and Lincoln (ed), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105-177).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guba, E.G. (1990). The paradigm dialogs. London: Sage.
Gutek, G. L. (2014). Philosophical, ideological, and theoretical perspectives on
education. London: Pearson.
Habermas, J. (1967). On the logic of the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann.
Harney, L., McCurry, J., Scott, J., & Wills, J. (2016). Developing 'process pragmatism to
underpin engaged research in human geography. Progress in Human Geography,
pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.1177/0309132515623367.
Hartshorne, R. (1959). Prospective on the nature of geography. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Harvey, D. (1969). Explanation in geography. London: Edward Arnold.
Hatch, M.J. & Yanow, D. (2003). Organization theory as an interpretive science. In H.
Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory:
Meta theoretical perspectives, pp. 63-87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher. London: Routledge.
Holt-Jenson, A. (2006). Geography: History and concept-A students’ guide. London: Sage.
Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory: Selected essays. New York: Herder & Herder.
Irene, D. (2014). The ontological and epistemological foundations of qualitative and
quantitative approaches to research with particular reference to content and
discourse analysis of textbooks. International Journal of Economics, Commerce
and Management, II (10), pp. 1-17.
Isaeva, N., Bachmann, R., Bristow, A., & Saunders, M.N.K. (2015). Why the
epistemologies of trust researchers matter. Journal of Trust Research, 5 (2) pp.
153–169.
James, W. (2000). Pragmatism and other writings. London: Penguin.
Kanhaiya Sapkota, Narayan Prasad Paudyal / Implications of Key Philosophical Assumptions... 99
Johnston, R. J. (1984). Philosophy and human geography: An introduction to
contemporary approaches. London: Edward Arnold.
Johnston, R. J. (1986). On human geography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jones, M.G. and Brader-Araje, L. (2005). The impact of constructivism on education: Language,
discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5 (3) pp. 1–10.
Kitchin, R. & Tate, N. (2013). Conducting research in human geography: Theory,
methodology and practice. England: Routledge.
Kneller, G. F. (1971). Introduction to the philosophy of education. USA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Koirala, H. L. (2008). Geography in crisis: Is geography in Nepal an exception? The
Geographical Journal of Nepal, Vol. pp. 6, 31-44.
Koirala, H. L. (2010). Are geographer’s research methodologies really poor? Tribhuvan
University Journal, 27, pp. 61-70.
Kvernbekk, T. (2002). Perspectives in philosophy of science. In T. Lund (ed), Introduction
to research methodology, p.19-78. Norway: Unipub forlag.
Liu, K., Tang, M., Liu, R. and Qin, R (2017). Geography’s “world view”: The
ontological issues of geography. J. Geogr. Sci. 27, 1541–1555 (2017). ). https://
doi.org/10.1007/ s11442-017-1451-z
Luhman, J.T. and Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Key concepts in organization theory. London: Sage.
Marinopoulou A. (2018) Critical theory: Epistemological content and method. In:
Liamputtong P. (eds) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences.
Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_58-1
National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10236
Nigal, S.G. (1986). Axiological approaches to Vedas. New Delhi: Northern Book Centre.
Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M., & Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative
research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. Nicholls and R. Ormston (eds.), Qualitative
Research Practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, pp.
1-25. Los Angeles: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Reed, M. (2005). 'Reflections on the ‘realist turn’ in organization and management
studies', Journal of Management Studies, 42 (8), pp. 1621-44.
Relph, E. (1981). Rational landscapes and humanistic geography. Totowa (NJ): Croom Helm.
Rosenberg, A. (2015). Philosophy of social science. London: Westview Press.
Rosenthal, M. & Yudin, P. (1967). A dictionary of philosophy. Moscow: Progress
Publishers.
Sapkota, K. (2017). Fundamentals of geographical thought. Kathmandu: Mahila Ojshwi
Manch.
 100 The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, Volume 20 - 21, 2021

Sapkota, K. (2019). Academic discourse on the dualism between regional geography and
systematic geography. The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, 18-19, pp. 111-122.
Savin-Baden, M. & Howell Major, C. (2013). Qualitative Research: The essential guide
to theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schaefer, F. (1953). Exceptionalism in geography. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 43, pp. 226-49.
Shadish, W. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), pp. 63-75.
Shotwell, A. (2014). Implicit knowledge: How it is understood and used in feminist
theory. Philosophy Compass, 9/5, pp. 315–324, Doi 10.1111/phc3.12130
Smith, J. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the
issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), pp. 6-13.
Subedi, B.P. (2014). The state of geography teaching and research in Nepal: A review
and reflection. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari.
Suchet-Pearson, S., Wright, S., Lloyd, K. & Burarrwanga, L. (2013). Caring as country:
Towards an ontology of co-becoming in natural resource management. Asia
Pacific Viewpoint, 52 (2), pp. 185-97.
Tang, M. (2010). The methodological issues of human geography research in mainland
of China. Human Geography, 25 (4), pp. 1-6.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Introduction to mixed method and mixed model
studies in the social and behavioral sciences. USA: Sage.
Tsoukas, H & C. Knudsen (eds.) (2003). The Oxford handbook of organization theory:
Meta-theoretical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsoukas, H. & Knudsen, C. (2003). Introduction: The need for meta-theoretical
reflection in organization theory. In H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsoukas, H. & R. Chia (eds.) (2011), Philosophy and organization theory. Research in
the sociology of organizations, 32. Bradford: Emerald.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wittgensteins, L. (1996). Philosophy of education. London: Edward Arnold.
Wood, N. & Smith, S.J. (2008). Pragmatism and geography. Geoforum, 39 (4), pp.
1527-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.06.003.