Difference Between Positivism And Interpretivism Pdf Reader
Interpretivism and positivism are two popular research paradigms. To understand both, it is best to start with understanding what research paradigm means.What is Research Paradigm and How it is Represented?A research paradigm is defined as a “set of common beliefs and agreements” shared by researchers regarding “how problems should be understood and addressed” (Kuhn, 1962). Therefore, this is a specific way of perceiving the world (a worldview) that shape how we seek answers to research questions. As Guba (1990) argued, a research paradigm is mainly characterised by its ontological, epistemological and methodological dispositions.What is Ontology and What is Epistemology?Before I begin to explain, let me assure you that these are two of the complex (philosophical) terms/ideas that not just me but many other researchers I know have struggled to grasp during early days of their academic lives. Understanding the two concepts makes it much easier to understand the nature of different research paradigms and their methodological applications. Remember, understanding is the key here, not remembering the definitions.
As a PhD student (7 years ago), I tried to understand by reading everything I could find but it only gave me a theoretical level understanding. However, once I began to apply the constructs to everyday life and all sorts of academic/non-academic problems that we come across in mundane life, it helped me to become more comfortable with the two terms and their research implications. I still use this in qualitative research sessions to aid student understanding.Nevertheless, let us begin with definitions. Ontology is the nature of reality (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988) and the epistemology is the relationship between the researcher and the reality or how this reality is captured or known (Carson et al., 2001). Following is my understanding and interpretation of the two terms.Ontology is concerned with identifying the overall nature of existence of a particular phenomenon. When we seek answers (reality) to our research questions, we are referring to a particular type of knowledge that exist external to the researcher. It is just the way things are.
On the contrary, epistemology is about how we go about uncovering this knowledge (that is external to researcher) and learn about reality. So it is concerned with questions such as how do we know what is true and how do we distinguish true from falls? Therefore, epistemology is internal to the researcher. It is how they see the world around them.For example, if you were asked whether it will rain tomorrow, there are two obvious responses to this question (YES or NO).
Can they be any other responses here? What about the relationship between two constructs (e.g. Price and Demand/Advertising and Market Share). We know that there are at least a finite number of relationships. But what is your response if I say that I have asked my partner to stay home, take care of the kids, and manage household things. Is it right or wrong?
How many responses will we get from a classroom of students? Some will say “NO” categorically, whilst some international students might say “YES”. There are also some students that say, “it depends” and continue with follow up questions regard how close our extended families live by, our current financial situation, the sort of job my wife does etc. The response to this question unlike the previous is contextually bound and multiple.The nature of reality (ontological disposition) that the above two questions refer to is distinct from one another. The first question refers to a reality that is dichotomous. There are similar questions in our everyday life that refers to such realities (right/wrong, true/falls, good/bad, etc.).
This dichotomous reality exists independent of who is doing the research and two different researchers, therefore, will be able to arrive at same conclusions. We see a positivistic ontology here. On the contrary, the nature of reality that the second question refers to is contextually bound. There are multiple realities that will result depending on who is doing the research and where/when the research is conducted. Again, some situation/problems we encounter in our everyday lives are quite similar to this and refers to an interpret ontology.Considering the responses given by us (let us say from a classroom of students) to the second question, some students were categorical “YES” or “NO” responses whilst some were less affirmative and needed to understand the context of which the question was asked.
These two types of students represent two epistemological dispositions: one having a positivistic epistemology (YES or No students) and the other having an interpretive/constructivist epistemology. This is how these students perceive the world around them and approach to understand the realities that exist in the outside world.Of course, there are several research paradigms (ontological, epistemological and methodological traditions/ideologies) that we come across in research but prevalently positivism, interpretivism, and pragmatism have attracted interest and debate. Let’s discuss positivism and interpretivism in detail.Positivism:The positivist ontology believes that the world is external (Carson et al., 1988) and that there is a single objective reality to any research phenomenon or situation regardless of the researcher’s perspective or belief (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Thus, they take a controlled and structural approach in conducting research by identifying a clear research topic, constructing appropriate hypotheses and by adopting a suitable research methodology (Churchill, 1996; Carson et al., 2001).
Positivist researchers remain detached from the participants of the research by creating a distance, which is important in remaining emotionally neutral to make clear distinctions between reason and feeling (Carson et al., 2001). They also maintain a clear distinction between science and personal experience and fact and value judgement. It is also important in positivist research to seek objectivity and use consistently rational and logical approaches to research (Carson et al., 2001). Statistical and mathematical techniques are central to positivist research, which adheres to specifically structured research techniques to uncover single and objective reality (Carson et al., 2001). The goal of positivist researchers is to make time and context free generalizations. They believe this is possible because human actions can be explained as a result of real causes that temporarily precedes their behaviour and the researcher and his research subjects are independent and do not influence each other (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).
Accordingly, positivist researchers also attempt to remain detached from the participants of the research by creating distance between themselves and the participants. Especially, this is an important step in remaining emotionally neutral to make clear distinctions between reason and feeling as well as between science and personal experience. Positivists also claim it is important to clearly distinguish between fact and value judgement. As positivist researchers they seek objectivity and use consistently rational and logical approaches to research (Carson et al. 2001; Hudson and Ozanne 1988).Interpretivism:The position of interpretivism in relation to ontology and epistemology is that interpretivists believe the reality is multiple and relative (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) explain that these multiple realities also depend on other systems for meanings, which make it even more difficult to interpret in terms of fixed realities (Neuman, 2000). The knowledge acquired in this discipline is socially constructed rather than objectively determined (Carson et al., 2001, p.5) and perceived (Hirschman, 1985, Berger and Luckman, 1967, p. 3: in Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).Interpretivists avoid rigid structural frameworks such as in positivist research and adopt a more personal and flexible research structures (Carson et al., 2001) which are receptive to capturing meanings in human interaction (Black, 2006) and make sense of what is perceived as reality (Carson et al., 2001). They believe the researcher and his informants are interdependent and mutually interactive (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). The interpretivist researcher enters the field with some sort of prior insight of the research context but assumes that this is insufficient in developing a fixed research design due to complex, multiple and unpredictable nature of what is perceived as reality (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).
The researcher remains open to new knowledge throughout the study and lets it develop with the help of informants. The use of such an emergent and collaborative approach is consistent with the interpretivist belief that humans have the ability to adapt, and that no one can gain prior knowledge of time and context bound social realities (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).Therefore, the goal of interpretivist research is to understand and interpret the meanings in human behaviour rather than to generalize and predict causes and effects (Neuman, 2000; Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). For an interpretivist researcher it is important to understand motives, meanings, reasons and other subjective experiences which are time and context bound (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988; Neuman, 2000).The following table summarizes the differences between the two research paradigms:Ontology and epistemological differences of positivism and interpretivism(Adopted from Carson et al. L., and Luckman, T. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Irvington Publishers. Black, I.
The presentation of interpretivist research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(4), 319–324. Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., and Gronhaug, K. Qualitative Marketing Research. London: Sage.
Churchill, G. Basic Marketing Research ( 3 rd Ed.), Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press. Guba, E. The paradigm dialog. Sage publications.
Hirschman, E. Primitive Aspects of Consumption in Modern American Society. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 237-249. Hudson, L., and Ozanne, J. Alternative Ways of Seeking Knowledge in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 508–521.
Hunt, S. Marketing Theory. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Vol.
Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage. Neuman, L.
Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4 th Ed.), USA: Allyn and Bacon.Dr Prabash EdirisinghaNewcastle Business SchoolNorthumbria University, UK. At this point, you might ask whether arts and sciences are so different. Can’t one person be an artist and a scientist? Perhaps they can, but when researching into writing theory I came across a lot of literature that would suggest there are pretty big differences between what kinds of things arts and science people value about writing – basic beliefs and attitudes. Chandler, for example, has approached characteristic differences between Classical and Romantic ways of thinking. Classical writers value planning, logic, order, structure, purpose, rigour, and objectivity.
Difference Between Positivism And Interpretivism Pdf Reader Free
Romantic writers, by contrast, favour discovery, freedom, lack of structure, enjoyment, and emergent form. Classical relates to the sciences, Romantic relates to the arts. Similar characteristic differences can be found between positivism and interpretivism. Research StrategyOnce you have an idea of the research approach that you are going to take, you next need to think about a research strategy that will lead you to find answers to your research question. That is, you need to think about your methodology and methods. You should get going on this near the start of your project and certainly before you do any data collection.
Positivism Research Philosophy Pdf
It is at this stage that you would consider, for instance, whether your research is going to involve a survey, one or more case studies, some action research, participant observation, or some other methodology. Whatever choice you make, you must be able to justify it in terms of your learning objectives, your research question, and your research approach.Your thinking at this stage should involve quite a high level of detail. For example, if your project were to involve in-depth interviewing, you would need to justify:who is to be interviewed, and whywhat questions are to be asked, and whyhow open ended you would like the responses to be, and why how will the responses be recorded, and whyhow will these responses be analysed and whyhow will conclusions be drawn from the analysis, and why.You are expected to be methodologically aware; – this means not only that you know what you are doing but also that you are able to provide the rationale for why you are doing it. For example, the design of interview questions should (normally) be based upon appropriate theory. Therefore, you will be expected to read and refer to appropriate textbooks on research methodology.