Understanding Social Reality in Educational Contexts

Every research study begins with an assumption – often unstated – about the nature of reality itself. Is the social world something that exists out there, waiting to be discovered and measured? Or is it something people continuously create through their interactions, beliefs, and interpretations? This fundamental question sits at the heart of educational research. How a researcher answers it determines not just the methods they use, but the very kinds of questions they think are worth asking. The two main positions in this debate are known as the objectivist and subjectivist conceptions of social reality – and understanding both is essential for any serious student of research.

What is social reality? 🔗

Before comparing the two views, it helps to clarify what “social reality” actually means. Ontology – the philosophical study of what exists and what is real – is concerned with this very question. In research, ontology asks: do social entities like schools, classrooms, leadership structures, or student motivation exist independently of the people involved in them? Or does their reality depend entirely on how people perceive and construct them?

According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, ontology is comprised of two key aspects: objectivism and subjectivism. These two positions represent fundamentally different answers to the question of what social reality is – and they have far-reaching consequences for how educational research is designed and conducted.

The objectivist view: reality exists independently 🔗

Objectivism holds that reality exists independently of human perception and can be objectively measured. From this standpoint, the social world – including educational institutions, teacher hierarchies, and student outcomes – has a concrete existence that does not depend on what individuals think or feel about it. A school’s organizational structure, for instance, remains what it is regardless of how any particular teacher experiences it.

This view is closely tied to positivism – a philosophical approach that accepts only observable or measurable experiences as valid data. Positivism held that the truth of individuals’ experiences, including interpersonal and social experiences, can be studied objectively, treating research subjects no differently than physical objects. Objectivist researchers therefore seek to discover patterns, test hypotheses, and generate findings that are replicable across different contexts.

How objectivism shapes research in education 🔗

Quantitative research is typically grounded in the objectivist perspective, where society is understood as a separate entity existing quite distinctly from the social actors that comprise it. In education, this translates to studies that measure student performance through standardized test scores, track attendance rates, analyze policy implementation using numerical indicators, or compare outcomes across schools using statistical tools.

Consider a researcher studying the effect of a new teaching method on student scores in mathematics. Using an objectivist approach, they would measure test results before and after the intervention and apply statistical analysis to determine whether any improvement occurred. Objectivist research is valued for its reliability – the consistency of results obtained – and external validity, meaning the results can be applied to other contexts.

However, this approach has clear limitations. Objectivism might not translate well to social sciences because it rejects the role context plays in meaning creation and discovery. When studying something like school culture or a student’s sense of belonging, purely measurable variables often fail to capture what is actually happening.

The subjectivist view: reality is constructed 🔗

The subjectivist position takes the opposite stance. Subjectivism holds that social phenomena are created from the perceptions and actions of the social actors who are concerned with their existence. In other words, social reality is not a fixed, pre-existing structure – it is actively built and rebuilt through human thought, language, and interaction.

In education, this means that concepts like “good teaching,” “student success,” or “school climate” do not have a single, universal meaning. They are shaped by who is experiencing them and how. A student from a disadvantaged background may experience the same classroom environment very differently from a student with significant academic support at home – and both experiences are valid expressions of that classroom’s social reality.

Subjectivist epistemology assumes that it is the subject who creates meaning and imposes it on the object – how we perceive and understand reality determines and creates knowledge. This aligns with interpretivist and constructivist research paradigms, which seek to understand the world from the inside, through the eyes of the participants.

How subjectivism shapes research in education 🔗

In the context of educational research, subjectivity is typically explored through qualitative methods such as interviews, observations, or case studies. The researcher seeks to understand how individuals make sense of their educational experiences, interpreting their meanings in light of personal backgrounds, emotions, and contexts.

For example, a researcher studying the impact of inclusive education might conduct in-depth interviews with teachers and students to understand how each group perceives and navigates that environment. Through semi-structured interviews, observations, or focus groups, the researcher uncovers how individuals interpret a situation based on their unique backgrounds and interactions. This can reveal complexities – such as conflicting understandings between teachers and students – that no survey instrument would detect.

The ontological basis for qualitative, interpretive researchers is one in which social reality is seen as a constantly shifting emergent property of individual creation. This does not mean that anything goes – rather, it means that research findings must be understood as context-bound and deeply tied to the perspectives of those involved.

Contrasting the two perspectives: a side-by-side view 🔗

The differences between objectivism and subjectivism run through every layer of the research process – from how a research question is framed to how data is collected and interpreted. The table below captures the core contrasts:

• Nature of reality: Objectivism sees reality as external and measurable; subjectivism sees it as constructed through experience and interaction.
• Role of the researcher: Objectivists aim for detachment and neutrality; subjectivists acknowledge that the researcher’s own perspective shapes the inquiry.
• Research methods: Objectivism favors quantitative tools (surveys, tests, statistics); subjectivism favors qualitative tools (interviews, observations, narratives).
• Goal of research: Objectivism seeks generalizable laws and patterns; subjectivism seeks deep, context-specific understanding.
• View of knowledge: Objectivism treats knowledge as discovered; subjectivism treats knowledge as constructed.

Ontological assumptions shape how researchers perceive and conceptualize the social world – whether they believe social reality is objective and exists independently of human perception, or that it is subjective and socially constructed. These assumptions then flow directly into epistemological choices (how knowledge is gathered) and finally into methodological decisions (what tools and techniques are used).

Why this matters in educational research 🔗

The choice between objectivist and subjectivist orientations is not a technicality – it reflects a deep commitment about what education actually is and how it can be understood. A researcher studying poverty in education might assume it is an objective condition measurable through income and enrolment data, or they might view it as a socially constructed experience shaped by cultural meaning and power relations – and each assumption leads to a very different research design.

This is especially significant in education because the field deals with human beings in social contexts that are inherently messy, layered, and value-laden. A policy researcher tracking dropout rates across districts is working with a very different conception of educational reality than an ethnographer spending months inside a single school community to understand why students disengage. Both are asking valid questions – but they are operating within different ontological frameworks.

The case for combining both 🔗

In practice, many educational researchers recognize that neither perspective alone is sufficient. A study on educational outcomes might use standardized test scores (objectivist) alongside interviews exploring student experiences (subjectivist), providing a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. This mixed-methods approach acknowledges that some aspects of educational reality can be measured, while others can only be understood through lived experience.

The objectivist view allows for thorough scrutiny of historical data to establish trends and variations that can inform research variables. At the same time, bearing in mind the subjectivist critique, historical data does not fully capture context – meaning each new research situation must be approached with openness and flexibility. Neither view cancels the other out. Together, they offer a more complete picture of educational life.

What matters most is that researchers are conscious of the ontological commitments underlying their work. Understanding the ontological and epistemological foundations of a research paradigm is essential for a complete understanding of the approach being used and the assumptions that underpin it. An unreflective researcher risks collecting data that answers the wrong question entirely – or misreading their findings because they have not examined the assumptions built into their method.

Implications for teachers as researchers 🔗

These philosophical positions are not just academic abstractions – they have real consequences for how teachers and school practitioners engage in inquiry. A teacher-researcher who surveys students about their learning preferences is implicitly adopting an objectivist stance: they assume there are patterns to be identified across a population. A teacher who sits with a struggling student to understand what school feels like for them is drawing on subjectivist sensibilities: they are seeking meaning, not measurement.

Qualitative research helps define what needs to be studied when there is no theory on a topic and variables are unknown, as opposed to quantitative approaches that use established theory to generate data. For educators engaging in classroom research or school improvement projects, this distinction is practically important: knowing whether you are trying to measure something or understand something will guide every decision you make as a researcher.

Ultimately, recognizing the philosophical basis of your research is not about labeling yourself an “objectivist” or a “subjectivist.” It is about being honest and rigorous about what you believe can be known about education – and why. That clarity strengthens not only the research itself but also the educational practices that grow from it.

What do you think? Does the way teachers understand social reality in their classrooms – whether they see it as something fixed and measurable or as something constantly shaped by student experiences – affect how they approach teaching and assessment? And when researchers study educational inequality, should they prioritize data-driven measurement or the lived experiences of those affected – or is it impossible to fully understand the problem without both?

References

1. https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/ontology/
2. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/researchmethodsandethics/chapter/1-4-understanding-key-research-concepts-and-terms/
3. https://bridgeresearchconsulting.com/blog/post/objectivism-vs-subjectivism-in-ontology
4. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=books
5. https://methods.sagepub.com/dict/edvol/download/the-sage-dictionary-of-social-research-methods/chpt/ontology.pdf
6. https://i2insights.org/2017/05/02/philosophy-for-interdisciplinarity/
7. https://phdcentre.com/phd-thesis-epistemology-guide/
8. https://adulteducation.quest/educational-research/objectivity-subjectivity-educational-research/
9. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7632&context=tqr
10. https://teachersnotes.net/2024/12/19/ontology-epistemology-methodology-and-methods/
11. https://bridgeresearchconsulting.com/blog/post/ontology-in-research-explained-with-examples
12. https://ivypanda.com/essays/objectivist-and-subjectivist-view-of-research/
13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470395/
14. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/key-distinctions-between-qualitative-and-quantitative-research-in-theory-and-data-epistemological-and-ontological-considerations/