METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND THEORETICAL STRUCTURES IN NATURAL SCIENCES: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW ANALYSIS OF THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Dewi Astuti; Insih Wilujeng; Woro Sri Hastuti; Ifan Awanda

doi:10.36526/sosioedukasi.v15i2.7972

Authors

Dewi Astuti Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Insih Wilujeng Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Woro Sri Hastuti Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Ifan Awanda Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36526/sosioedukasi.v15i2.7972

Keywords:

metaphysical assumptions, natural science ontology, social science ontology, natural sciences, critical realism

Abstract

assumptions underlying the theoretical structure of the Natural and Social Sciences (SPS), with a particular focus on the ontological foundations of both disciplines. This study uses a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach referring to the PRISMA 2020 protocol. A systematic literature search was conducted through the Scopus, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online, PhilPapers, and MDPI databases, with a publication period of 2015–2026. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and book chapters that discuss metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, or methodological aspects of the natural and/or social sciences. A total of 29 key literatures were analyzed thematically using a narrative synthesis approach. The analysis revealed four main themes: (1) ontological assumptions in the natural sciences are characterized by metaphysical naturalism that emphasizes an orderly and observable external reality; (2) ontological assumptions in the social sciences exhibit greater diversity, encompassing critical realism that recognizes social structures as emergent, social constructivism, and an ontology of agency and structure; (3) ontological tensions between the natural and social sciences frequently arise in interdisciplinary research, particularly in the area of sustainability, but critical realism and methodological pluralism are offered as potential resolutions; (4) an integrated naturalistic metaphysics (scientific metaphysics) is proposed as a framework that bridges scientific and social ontologies through a model-based approach and inference to the best explanation. The findings of this study provide a theoretical contribution to the development of social sciences as an interdisciplinary field, by offering a conceptual map of metaphysical assumptions that can facilitate more reflective and productive cross-disciplinary collaboration.

References

Abusaada, H., & Elshater, A. (2024). Beyond Keywords: Effective Strategies for Building Consistent Reference Lists in Scientific Research. Publications, 12(3), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12030025

Ahmed, S. K., Mohammed, R. A., Nashwan, A. J., Ibrahim, R. H., Abdalla, A. Q., M. Ameen, B. M., & Khdhir, R. M. (2025). Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 6, 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019

Bryant, A. (2025). Social Science and the Naturalization of Social Metaphysics. Journal of Social Ontology, 11(1), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.25365/JSO-2025-8813

Buch‐Hansen, H. (2023). Contending philosophy of social science perspectives: A flexible typology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 53(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12359

Bumatay, V. K. D. (2022). Formal schemas of induction as models. Synthese, 200(6), 470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03921-6

Chakravartty, A. (2017). Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology. Oxford University Press.

Dadas, Y., Oner, G., Karaman, E., Ayan, D., Doganay, H. N., Bayram, E., Sanlier, N. T., & Kulular, B. (2026). Fertility Preservation Strategies in Women with Pelvic Gynecologic Malignancies Undergoing Multimodal

Oncologic Treatment: A Systematic Review. Cancers, 18(7), 1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18071142

Ferrari, F. M. (2024). Special Issue nn Scientific Process Ontology And Metaphysics—A Thematic Introduction. Manuscrito, 47(1), e-2024-0112. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2024.v47n1.ff

Firoozeh, N., Nazarenko, A., Alizon, F., & Daille, B. (2020). Keyword extraction: Issues and methods. Natural Language Engineering, 26(3), 259–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324919000457

Flemming, K., & Noyes, J. (2021). Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1609406921993276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276

Hawley, K. (2018). Social Science as a Guide to Social Metaphysics? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 49(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-017-9389-5

Kaidesoja, T. (2013). Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology. Routledge.

Kolasi̇, K. (2018). Uluslararası İlişkilerde Sosyal Ontoloji Kavrayışının Meta-Teorik Eleştirisi. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.523818

Longo, S. B., Isgren, E., & Carolan, M. (2025). Critical sustainability science: Advancing sustainability transformations. Sustainability Science, 20(5), 1903–1917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01667-x

Mitchell, S. D. (2023). The landscape of integrative pluralism. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 38(3), 261–297. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.25273

Persson, J., Hornborg, A., Olsson, L., & Thorén, H. (2018). Toward an alternative dialogue between the social and natural sciences. Ecology and Society, 23(4), art14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10498-230414

Porpora, D. V. (2015). Reconstructing Sociology: The Critical Realist Approach. Cambridge University Press.

Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications, 9(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012

Ross, D. (2023). Scientific metaphysics and social science. Synthese, 202(5), 146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04358-1

Sambrotta, M. (2023). Introduction. American Philosophical Quarterly, 60(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5406/21521123.60.1.01

Sarkia, M. (2022). A model-based approach to social ontology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 52(3), 175–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931211056952

Sarkia, M., & Kaidesoja, T. (2023). Two approaches to naturalistic social ontology. Synthese, 201(3), 104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04105-6

Saunders, D. (2020). Optimism for Naturalized Social Metaphysics: A Reply to Hawley. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(2), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119894901

Shevchenko, V. (2023). “Inference to the best explanation” as a methodology of social ontology. Sociology of Power, 35(4), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2023-4-122-140

Stavrianos, A. (2025). Unveiling the Layers of Reality: An Exploration of Critical Realism in Interdisciplinary Research. Educational Theory, 75(5), 913–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.70039