Ontological Foundations Analysis of Sociological Research in Iran

Introduction: Acquisition of philosophy and its related conceptual system are considered necessary for carrying out of a social research. Indeed, in every scientific era, the subject and features of a specific science has been much more determined by ontological mechanism, then exploration, description, explanation or even analysis or prediction will be possible. The nature of reality and the objects that we can know more, are the main ontological questions. Investigation of “Existence” is considered as the heart of ontology. It also determines assumptions representing social research approaches considering reality. Essentially, ontological and epistemological paradigms available in every scientific approach as its paradigm foundation, directly represent the specific science and its methodological features.
Thus, using a paradigm approach, the present study, characterizes Iranian sociologists Research ontological orientation in term of the logical process of science generation into positivism, interpretation and critical sciences and then describes these sociologists’ conceptual system. Discovering and analysis of the sociologists’ research ontological presumptions both reveal the directions of science generation through social realities, and offers comparison within the current ontological paradigms over sociological research. It is suggested that in addition to identifying the sociologists’ scientific identity, challenges related to their research paradigm foundations be understood.
Method: The present research conducted upon the logical foundation of qualitative research. In this line, we have applied interpretation approach and interrogative strategy. The current article results have been collected by using directed content analysis through criterion sampling and document review of interviews contents, including 55 scientific samples related to 6 participants of the study.
Findings: The results show that the interpretation paradigm has been dominated in the Fayaz, Mohadesi and GhaneiiRaad’s research ontological, while in the AzaadArmaki, RafiPour and Chalabi’s research ontological, the positivism paradigm plays the key role. But, there is no single and discriminative discourse border among the scientific research, and for describing these scientist’s thought combination of paradigms must be addressed.
Conclusion: Practical directions toward research and investigation about social world mainly depend on theories, approaches and strategies carried out by a researcher. Social researchers are encountered with many options that force them to apply different research strategies, which consequently results in different outcomes and findings. It is supposed that these above mentioned variables are determined by the researcher ontological approach.
The present study was trying to find out the Iranian sociologist’s ontological paradigm and then their conceptual system. The study results show that the selected researcher ontological approaches are different in term of positivism, interpretation, critical approaches, however, deep analysis demonstrated that this ontological bordering is not so stable. Indeed, the findings reveal paradigm combination among AzaadArmaki, GhaneiiRaad, RafiPour and Mohadesi’s sociologically studies. So, drawing out a distinctive ontological border among these sociologists or even their own single research is not so easy. That resulted in disorder to addressing the dominant ontological approaches over the Iranian sociologists' studies.