Outline the Assumptions and Methods of Interpretivist and Positivist Approaches to Research.

Outline the Assumptions and Methods of Interpretivist and
Positivist Approaches to Research.

Most philosophical studies are concerned with problems such as reality, knowledge, human behaviour and existence. Positivism and Interpretativism originated from philosophical disciplines in order to explain phenomena and clarify ideas on reality, knowledge, human behaviour and existence. This essay will outline in parallel the Positivists’ and the Interpretivists’ assumptions on ontology, epistemology, purpose of science and scientific research, human beings, relationship between researcher and object of research. The final part of the essay will discuss the main methods used by Positivists and interpretativists in parallel.
The entire Positivistic research is guided by their ontological assumption. To them reality is universal, independent, objective and guided by “natural laws” (Decorp, 2006, p.47). As a result they see reality as only one, it is not a subject of interpretations or processes of individual perceiving and reality does not fit into frames. Positivists’ ideology is guided by objectivism. Interpretivist research on the other hand recognizes that reality is not universal or objective, but constructed and a subject of interpretations (Sarantakos, 2005). Interpretivism is based on subjectivity and to them processes of perceiving and processing information are central in understanding reality, knowledge and the social world in general(Newman, 2006).
Another leading aspect of Positivistic research is the understanding of knowledge. Positivism and Empirism share the same view on knowledge, namely only knowledge that comes though the senses can be referred to as genuine and ultimate (Robson, 2002). In applying this particular assumption Positivists and Empirists can then measure and document knowledge (Hayes, 2000). In other words Positivist reject of “interpretivist epistemology” (Sarantakos, 2005, p30). The former sees true knowledge as independent of the mind and the last sees the mind, hence, peoples’ interpretations crucial in understanding knowledge.
Positivism being guided by objective principles, considers the purpose of science and scientific research to be instrumental. In other words the purpose of science and research is to find out and record the general laws causing human behaviour (Newman, 2006). They suggest that all sciences should employ the methods used in natural sciences (Robson, 2002). In other words positivism makes it possible to examine the social world using set principles and designs, applied by the natural sciences, therefore supports the idea of achieve an objective result. In interpretivisit fashion where the central ideological position is taken by Webber’s concept of understanding individualistic human behaviour, the purpose of science and scientific research is not measure or document laws but rather to discover what stands behind the facts, how do people interpret causes and what effect these interpretations have on human behaviour (Hayes, 2000).
In that line of thoughts this essay would look into the Positivists and Interpretivists assumptions on human beings in more detail. For example positivists reject all aspects of internal, subjective issues. The focus of their observations is on behavioural stereotypes based on their belief of cause and effect (Decrop, 2006).In other words to positivists exposure to the same conditions or causes will ultimately produce the same reaction-effect (Newman, 2006). Considering that a cause will have the same effect on everyone and suggesting that there is no individuality and free will in terms of internal causes of behaviour is met by strong opposition in the face of interpretivists’ assumptions. The last sees human beings as individuals who have their own thoughts, different backgrounds and cultures which affect the ways they interpret the world and create their own reality, which results in different behavioural patterns (Newman, 2006). In that line of thought human actions are not unconscious or instinctive, stimulated by external causes, but rather purposeful and apprehensive due to their personality, nature, personal experience. This is why understanding how human beings construct reality, the meanings and motives they put in their actions are essential to Interpretivists, or as Hayes (2000) suggests the key to understand human behaviour is to see the subjective side of it through the eyes of the phenomena they research; in that particular case- human beings. According to Kim (2003), Positivists are quite dualistic when it comes to the relationship between a researcher and the object of their investigation. They believe that the two separately exist. However is it possible to examine and object or human behaviour without adding personal opinion or ascribing qualities? Is it possible to stay entirely objective? Positivists realize that qualities are often ascribed and the object of their research can easily be affected by the researcher’s own interpretations, therefore researchers may have to distance themselves from the object of their research. Since Interpretivists’ ideology is based on subjectivism, the researcher becomes the tool to evaluate the object of their research (Kim, 2003). This aspect of Interpretivists research is strongly evident in their research methods which will be discussed next.
Positivistic research is largely based on hypo-deductive approach which allows the researcher to observe a phenomenon based on what is known about it (Hayes, 2000). The hypotheses drown from the established theories are then subject of quantitative research, which often takes form of surveys, observations, “structured interviews”(Sarantakos, 2005,p.50) and experiments, as they allow the reduction of an observed phenomenon to values, which are then statistically analysed(Hays,2000; Kim,2003). Positivistic research uses qualitative methodology not only because it provides strict designs, suitable for positivists’ requirements, but also because of their shared assumptions on objectivity, reality and knowledge (Gelo, Braakmann &Benetka, 2008). Quantitative research variations are often used by The Office of National Statistics and the NHS. Interpretivists use an inductive approach to research as they disapprove of forming hypotheses in advance; they see it as a way to force an explanation before the actual research has begun(Hays, 2000; Kim, 2003). Interpretivism is also closely associated with qualitative methodology as they share similar views and ideas (Gelo et al., 2008;Sarantacos, 2005).Interpretivist research commonly takes the form of intensive interviews case studies and ethnographic studies(Gelo et al.,2008) Examples of these types of researches can be found in SEED; BPS and others.
Over all Positivistic method of research has been widely accepted in many scientific fields due to the fact that it provides an objective and more reliable information. However Positivism completely undermines the possibility that cognitive processes may determine peoples’ reactions and behaviour. This is one of the reasons why Interpretivists approach to research was developed. Even though both approaches have contradictory assumptions and methodologies they are both extremely valuable to social science research.

REFERENCE LIST

Decorp, A. (2006). Methods to Investigate Vacation Decision Making. Vacation Decision Making 46-65. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ucssuffolk/Doc?id=10157981&ppg=70
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D. & Cenetka, G.,(2008). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Beyond the Debate. Investigate Psychological and Behavioural Science, 42(3), 266-290. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3.
Hays, N., (2000). Doing Psychological Research: Gathering and Analysing Data. Philadelphia, USA: Open University Press
Kim,S., (2003). Research Paradigms in Organizational Learning and Performance: Completing Modes of Inquiry. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 9-18. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.login.library.ucs.ac.uk/docview/219843580
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing
Sarantakos, Sotirios (2005). Social Research (3rd ed.). New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.