Positivism and Interpretivism PDF

Preview

Summary

Positivist and Interpretivist factors and comparisons...

Description

How do ‘interpretivist’ and ‘positivist’ traditions within the Social Sciences differ in the way in which they understand and investigate human beings? In this essay I will outline and explain the differences between positivist and interpretivist traditions in social science in the way they understand and investigate human beings. To explore their differences, I will consider their ontological and epistemological positions and their methodological approach that they adopt to investigate human behaviour.

To begin with, it is vital to outline the positivist and interpretivist ontological positions. Ontology is defined as a “science of what is, of the kind of structure of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality (Smith 2003, pp. 155). This refers to the way the social world is seen and the social phenomena’s that surround it and make up the social world. It also presents the questions: ‘what is there to study?’ and ‘why do people see things differently?’ Positivists hold an objective ontological view on the social world and this is the idea that the social world exists without us (as social actors), as a single reality. (REFERENCE) Durkheim was a very influential positivist researcher who argued that ‘social factors’ take on properties of ‘things’ in general and they are external to us and constrain us (Durkheim, 1982). On the other hand, interpretivists favour the constructionist ontological position which argues that social phenomena are created by us and are constantly being reshaped. This position argues that there are many multiple realities present in society and this allows researchers to study the meanings and experiences of the actors, rather than study from an objective position.

A second difference between the approaches is the consideration of their epistemological positions. Epistemology can be defined as “presenting a view and a justification for what can be regarded as knowledge” (Blaiki 1993, pp. 6-7). Positivist epistemology positon is the idea that knowledge is defined by what can be observed from an outsider position and rejects the idea of a subjective understanding. Instead, the positivist researcher aims to hold an objective position because they believe that you can only understand human beings through a single social reality which is completely independent of the researcher (Matthews and Ross, 2010). For example, if a positivist researcher wanted to study drinking behaviour in university students, they could design a simple questionnaire with many closed questions, such as ‘how many units of alcohol do you consume a week?’ or ‘how many a week do you drink at least one serving of alcohol?’ and would distribute them to as many students as

1

How do ‘interpretivist’ and ‘positivist’ traditions within the Social Sciences differ in the way in which they understand and investigate human beings? possible. They would then statistically analyse the data and generate statistics and trends from the results and aim to generalise the results to the wider population. The overall aim for positivists when understanding human beings is to identify trends and correlations from quantifiable data.

In contrast to this, interpretivists take a different approach to understanding human beings. Interpretivists aim to understand people’s meaning and understandings of the social world. They aim to “enter the social world and grasp the socially constructed meanings and then reconstruct them into scientific language” (Blaikie, 1993: pp. 96). Some interpretivists take an emic position within research and this allows them to be able to interpret other people’s meanings and feelings. An emic positon is defined as taking an insider positon within research and being able to fully engage with the sample. For example, Pearson (2012) conducted a study where he researched football hooliganism from an emic position by living among Blackpool FC fans to allow him to understand the impact of the law changes upon violence amongst football crowds. This is in contrast to an Etic approach which is when a researcher takes an outsider position in the research and seems to ‘observe from the other side of the window’ (Morris, Leung, Ames and Lickel, 1999.)

Interpretivists support the idea of constructionism and this is the idea that things are constructed by ‘us’ and there are multiple realities in society which are influenced by context and environments instead of a single reality which the positivists favour. Rather than test a hypothesis and generate data, interpretivists prefer to gather data and use this data to generate a brand new theory, an inductive/ bottom- up approach. Using the example before about drinking behaviour in university students, interpretivists could approach the study from an emic position and they would aim to either organise a focus group, interviews or participant observations or attend a university house party to see the behaviour first hand. For example, Dumbili and Williams (2017) conducted a qualitative study on drinking game participation and normalization of intoxication among university students. They designed thirty-one in-depth interviews to fully understand the drinking culture at university. They found the factor which influences the normalization of intoxication the most is peers and this is the idea of fitting in because ‘everyone is doing it’ (Dumbili and Williams 2017).

2

How do ‘interpretivist’ and ‘positivist’ traditions within the Social Sciences differ in the way in which they understand and investigate human beings? Therefore, they managed to interpret meanings behind the study rather than just focus on statistics or trends which positivists would focus on. During most qualitative studies, the interpretivist researchers would focus on factors that influence the drinking such as culture, environment, peers and they would treat each case individually, unlike the positivist way of trying to categorise behaviours. Therefore, the interpretivist researcher would predominantly attempt to understand the meanings and values behind the students and why they behave in the way they do.

To be able to explain how positivist and interpretivists differ in the ways they investigate human beings, it is essential to highlight the different ground between them and this can be seen through their methodology. Positivists generally favour quantitative methods and interpretivists generally favour qualitative methods. Positivists see the social world as ‘real’ and heavily support the idea of researching human beings from an objective point of view because they argue that only knowledge gained from observed experienced can be taken seriously, commonly known as Phenomenalism. (Yates 2004). Positivists favour objective experimental methods such as laboratory experiments, questionnaires and structured interviews. These methods provide quantifiable data for the researchers and they can be empirically verified. For example, Dinkha and Mitchell (2014) used quantitative methods to research the relationship between TV violence, aggression, anti-social behaviours and parental mediation in Kuwait. They designed a questionnaire composed of 22 questions and they distributed them to 120 random respondents. The questionnaire had basic questions on such as ‘On the scale of 1-10, how many programs that you watched as child would you say contained fighting, guns or aggressive behaviour?’ or ‘How many hours of your leisure time did you spend playing violent video games when you were a child?’ These questions require simple numerical answers which can be easily quantifiable when it comes to concluding the research. They aimed to find a correlation between the restrictions placed on TV viewing and whether they had an effect on violence later on in life. This questionnaire was completed from an objective point of view and the researcher held an outsider position during the research. (Dinka and Mitchell 2014).

3

How do ‘interpretivist’ and ‘positivist’ traditions within the Social Sciences differ in the way in which they understand and investigate human beings? Positivists usually obtain data to test a current hypothesis which has been created from an existing theory. For example, if a positivist researcher wanted to research aggression and test the hypothesis ‘children are more likely to become aggressive in their later lives if they are subjected to aggressive TV/games during their childhood’ they would firstly define aggressions and consider the theories that are relevant to the hypothesis. Then they would conduct an objective and quantitative experiment to test this and include a large sample which can be generalised to the wider population through the use of quantifiable data. After this, they would apply their findings to specific theories who discuss the relevant theories, such as Badura’s social learning theory which encompasses the idea of observation and imitation (Bandura, 1977). Positivists generally use a deductive approach when investigating human beings which places theory over explanation. They favour obtaining the theory first so they can generate explanations from it.

Interpretivists differ to positivists and would rather see reality as a social construct which should be treated independently and subjectively. This view can be seen through the way they conduct the favourable qualitative research methods such as focus groups, observations and semi-structured interviews. (Yates 2004). These research methods enable the researcher to take an insider position in the research and have to opportunity to interpret the meanings and understandings of the chosen sample group. Qualitative research methods are also encouraged by interpretivists because they allow the researcher to gain data which is rich and meaningful (Geertz, 1973.) Using the previous topic about ‘aggression during childhood’, interpretivists could seek out a small sample of people who have played aggressive video games or watched aggressive TV during their childhood and they would invite them to a focus group or a semi-structured interview. This type of research enables the sample to speak freely about their opinions and provide an in-depth understanding of the subject matter. During this, the researcher may examine the ways they talk and behave rather than just what they are saying or writing (through discourse analysis or narrative theory approaches). After the sample have given their opinion, the researcher could seek out family members or people close to the individuals and invite them to share their opinions and give their insight towards aggression. The interpretivist researcher would

4

How do ‘interpretivist’ and ‘positivist’ traditions within the Social Sciences differ in the way in which they understand and investigate human beings? aim to gain a deeper understanding to explain possible explanations for the aggression and whether it is linked to aggressive TV programmes or aggressive video games.

To conclude, it is important to recognise the differences between positivists and interpretivists when understanding and investigating human beings. Each researcher has to identify their own ontological and epistemological positions and decide which is going to be the most valuable for understanding and investigating human behaviour. 1607 words

5

How do ‘interpretivist’ and ‘positivist’ traditions within the Social Sciences differ in the way in which they understand and investigate human beings?

Bibliography Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Blaikie, N. (1993) Approaches to Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press. Dinka, J. and Mitchell, C. (2014) The Relationship among TV Violence, Aggression, Anti-Social Behaviours and Parental Mediation. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (23) June, pp. 1906- 1913. Dumbili, E. and Williams, C. (2017) Drinking game participation, gender performance and normalization of intoxication among Nigerian university students. Addictive Behaviours Reports, 5 June, pp.1-8. Durkheim, E. (1982) The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Matthews, B. and Ross, L. (2010) Research Methods. Cambridge: Pearson Education. Morris, M., Leung, K., Ames, D. and Lickel, B. (1999) Views and From Inside and Outside: Integrating Emic and Etic Insights about Culture and Justice Judgement. Academy of Management Review, 24 (4), pp. 781-796. Pearson, G. (2012) An ethnography of English football fans: Cans, cops and carnivals. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Smi t h , B. ( 2 0 0 3 )On t o l og y . I n :Fl o r i d i ,L.TheBl a c kwe l lGui det ot hePhi l os o ph yo f Comput i ngandI nf o r ma t i o n,Ox f o r d :Bl a c k we l l , pp.155-166.

Yates, S. (2004) Doing Social Science Research. London: SAGE Publications.

6...