Positivist and Interpretivist.
According to (Lin, 1998 pg162-180), positivism implies that social research should be performed in a scientific manner; this is done through the use of quantitative research means such as analytics and questionnaires, which can be used to draw up a conclusion based on the information collected. Interpretivist, on the other hand, states that research needs to be conducted using qualitative data such as observation and informal interviews due to the fact that humans are sentient thus cannot be studied using the same basis as the natural world. This essay will aim at comparing and contrasting both the approaches and their impact on social science.
The differences in both approaches have significantly contributed to the study of social science. This is because they offer completely different ways of research hence generate different results that can be compared and help make sound judgments (Roth and Mehta, 2002, pg131-173). The approach differentiates philosophically in that positivism places the observer as an independent party from the research topic. In contrast, in cow
interpretivism the observer is construed to be part of the research. It is also important to note that human interests are considered to be irrelevant in positivism whereas these are the key main drivers of science in interpretivism. The research progress in positivism is done by hypothesis and deductions in positivism while interpretivism aims at gathering rich data from which ideas are generated. It is based on the approaches perspective on the world that determines how the two look at similar subjects (Henderson, 2011, pg341-346). The world is viewed as a completely external object in research, whereas in interpretivism the world is perceived to be internal and subjective. Interpretivist research comes from constructivist subjectivism and is viewed as an overly response to positivism which places its focus on objectivity. The key objective of this approach is to recognize and understand what inspires people to build the world. This varies in opinion since there are no defined universal laws that govern their actions. In positivism the observer must be an independent party whereas in interpretivism the observer is part of what is being observed.
When it comes to collecting data that will provide useful knowledge for the benefit of social science collection, the two approaches adopt completely different means of collecting data. In the positivism approach, qualitative methods are advocated. These methods include social surveys, use of official statistics and social surveys. These methods are preferred for the approach since they are reliable and have a sense of representativeness (Clarke, 2009, pg28-36). In the interpretivism approach, qualitative methods are preferred. These methods could be through informal unstructured interviews or participant observation. These methods are justified since the approach argues that individuals don’t react to external social forces as the positivism approach tends to purport ( Rivas, 2010, pg203-227). For example, if a researcher wanted to find out why people scratch their faces when they talk, the researcher using the interpretivism approach will ask people questions and make judgments based on their responses. In positivism, the researcher will need questionnaires for analysis as well as seek scientific evidence such as statistics and data previously. Due to the difference in approach, the answers may vary but may share a common similarity e.g., in this case, psychological behavior.
Even though the two approaches differ widely in how it views social science, they do share a common similarity and that is; they both emphasize on reality and the interpretation of its data is aimed at truth and observation in both approaches is seen as the foundation of truth (Hovorka and Lee, 2010, pg188). Both methods rely on the skill of observation; they only differ on how they are recorded and the perspective in which they are observed.
References:
Clarke, C., 2009. Paths between positivism and interpretivism: An appraisal of Hay’s via media. Politics, 29(1), pp.28-36.
Henderson, K.A., 2011. Post-positivism and the pragmatics of leisure research. Leisure Sciences, 33(4), pp.341-346.
Hovorka, D.S. and Lee, A.S., 2010, December. Reframing Interpretivism and positivism as Understanding and Explanation: Consequences for Information Systems Research. In ICIS (p. 188).
Lin, A.C., 1998. Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy studies journal, 26(1), pp.162-180.
Rivas, J., 2010. Realism. For real this time: scientific realism is not a compromise between positivism and interpretivism. In Scientific Realism and International Relations (pp. 203-227). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Roth, W.D. and Mehta, J.D., 2002. The Rashomon effect: Combining positivist and interpretivist approaches in the analysis of contested events. Sociological methods & research, 31(2), pp.131-173.