A real common ground: A case for confronting agential realism and critical realism

<ns3:p>Background This report proposes a preliminary comparison of two contemporary theoretical frameworks, agential realism (AR) and critical realism (CR), for interdisciplinary research. The aim is to explore the potential of combining these frameworks into a new proposal with a specific metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological structure, which is particularly relevant for emotion research in psychology and philosophy. Methods The report compares AR and CR examining four key topics: ontology and epistemology; “critical” inspiration and aims; causality; and emotions. Results AR proposes a relational ontology in which reality is constituted by phenomena and intra-actions, whereas CR offers a stratified view of reality with three domains: real, actual, and empirical. Both frameworks have emancipatory intent and aim to bridge the gap between social constructivism and realism, though with different approaches. Regarding causality, AR reconceptualizes it through the notion of "apparatus" and causal intra-actions, while CR views causality as pertaining to the ontological level of the real, with mechanisms causing effects in the actual and empirical domains. Conclusions This comparison highlights the potential for creating a bridge between these frameworks to address complex interdisciplinary research questions, particularly in emotion studies. It invites feedback from different disciplines for future work on this topic, aiming to develop a more nuanced approach to understanding human phenomena, such as emotions.</ns3:p>