The critical paradigm recognizes the social construction of knowledge, defined in a manner which suites the interests of the elite groups in society(Travers, 2008). Therefore, true objectivity can be found in the discourse of the marginalized groups(Travers, 2008). The goal of this paradigm is to provide a voice for the marginalized groups, addressing the issues of social inequality, and work towards making reparations, in hope of a reshaping of our society(Travers, 2008). In the case of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, the critical paradigm addresses the conflicts between the differing native and elite viewpoints.
Critical ontology emphasizes that reality is socially constructed by the elite groups in society, supporting their position of power, resulting in conflict as the marginalized groups resist(Travers, 2008). Berger’s report recognizes the conflict between the views of the elite groups, who run the oil and gas companies, and those of the native people. The elite groups purport that the development of the pipeline, and the associated ventures, would benefit not only the economy but the native people who would have jobs and be able to join the wage economy(Berger, 1988). They attempt to create a perception, in which the native people would benefit from joining the rest of society, using the proposed development as a means of integrating them. Berger, who appears to follow a critical ontology, voices the opinions of the natives in his inquiry. Louis Frost’s statement, about how the white’s throw them into reserves and take what they please, expresses the reality that natives view this as a repeat of a historical threat, in which the elite groups once took them from their land and imposed their ways(Berger, 1988).
Critical epistemology emphasizes how objective knowledge is found through the discourse of the marginalized groups, as the knowledge proposed