Fekede Tuli Critical Review

Positivism and interpretivism are two approaches of interpreting social reality, that each employ different methods of research and data collection to better help understand the study of human lived experiences. The positivist-interpretivist debate revolves around the ways in which human behavior should be conceptualized and studied (Pruss 1996: 4). Positivism is the most widely practiced research approach in social science, which regards the nature of social reality independent of consciousness. Positivists believe social reality can be studied independently from the researcher and that social life can be represented using numbers that according to positivists reveal features of social reality. On the other hand, interpretivists favor partipcant observation, interviews and social interaction where the researcher immerses into the informant’s reality to gain knowledge of their everyday human lived experiences.

Within this assignment there will be a clear demonstration and understanding of the concept of research in relation to the acquisition of underpinning knowledge appropriate to my programme of study. I will also be undertaking a comparative analysis of the nature and validity of quantitative and qualitative research methods. I will also be demonstrating skills in critical analysis of methods of data collection and selection of appropriate methods to informing future working practice. I will also be analyse the ethical considerations in relation to the development and undertaking of research.

‘Employing a qualitative methodology, underpinned by a constructivist world view, has provided the means to generate rich, deep and contextualised understandings of the research issue, and an appreciation of the socially constructed and experienced realities of the participants.’ (Highfield 2012)

For quite a while there has been some discussion around which method of distinctions between Qualitative research and quantitative research. This has been fired in later years with some thinking that a combination of the two is best practice especially in social

Qualitative methods may include focus groups, in-depth interviews, and reviews of documents. Primary inductive process is used to formulate theory or hypotheses. The qualitative method is more subjective, it describes a problem or condition from the point of view of those experiencing it. It is

Qualitative data is not numerical and is more likely to take the form of observations or interviews. Obviously, it is very difficult to perform any statistical analysis on this kind of data. A further problem is that another researcher cannot replicate this data and therefore it is difficult to check the validity of what has been written. Researchers using this kind of data must be careful to avoid subjectivity, that is, they must avoid letting their personal beliefs or preferences affect the way they record and interpret the data. The advantage of this form of data collection is that it allows the researcher to answer open-ended questions; consequently, it is more flexible. Qualitative data also provides opportunities to explain the context of an observation and can therefore present a fuller picture (OU, 2001).

A qualitative methodological approach was the obvious choice in that it allows for the collection and interpretation of stories, narratives, interviews and other forms of non-quantifiable data. A qualitative approach also does not demand or strive for detached objectivity of the researcher but instead encourages the disclosure of researcher bias and the engagement of the researcher with the research and subjects, often in the role of participant-observer (Dade, Tartakov, Hargrave, & Leigh,

Maxwell (2005) also notes that qualitative research can be used to address various issues and is not restricted to one ontological stance. The method also involves developing a relationship with the people one is studying, an aspect that is important in defining the authenticity of the data and determining the course of action.

Epistemological criticism argues that all approaches are unlikely to produce consistent evidence because of the inherent property. It will generate a new viewpoint. However, through abundant reading, triangulation will enlarge width and depth in qualitative research and provide an analysis with security- a overall perspective. Participants can improve the validity of research. Bloor (1978) argues that sociologists can establish a correspondence with participants, in which participants can identify, give assent and judgement to sociologists.

The more ‘extreme’ positions in the debate between qualitative versus quantitative research state that qualitative research is “unscientific, anecdotal, and saturated by the opinions of the researcher”, whereas the latter is “not representative of human behaviour” (Natasi & Schensul, 2005).

Consequently, qualitative research approach emerges from the philosophical belief that truth is socially constructed and subjective to individual experiences associated with critical theory, constructivism, interpretatism, and naturalistic paradigms (Feilzer, 2010; Ponterotto, 2010; Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2007; Scotland, 2012; Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013; Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004). Paradigms are the philosophical underpinning that guides qualitative research methodology as result evaluating scientific merit slightly differs from the quantitative methodology. As a result, the scientific merit of qualitative lies in the credibility (trustworthiness), dependability (consistency), transferability (applicability), and comfirmability (verification/neutrality) of the data to answer the research question (Ellis & Levy, 2009; Horsburgh, 2002; Ponterotto, 2010; Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2007; Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004).

The approach of this study will take the epistemological position and a qualitative research design. Humphries (2008) asserts that qualitative research focusses on the subjective and recognises that the researcher will affect the data that is produced and therefore the outcome of the research. Denzin & Lincoln (2005:3) state that “Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them”. Quantitative research on the other hand, claims to be objective, removing the researcher’s views and values from the study. While traditionally quantitative data has been deemed to produce more reliable or valid data, it does not suffice to capture the complexities of the human experience as it assumes a positivist epistemology.

Research paradigms (interpretive, positive and post-positive) are processes to follow when gathering information about a subject area, to then answer the hypothesis (Punch, 2009; Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011), this study used the interpretive paradigm due to the social constructivism of people’s perceptions within the subject area and the outcome of the qualitative research methods and literature, triangulated to produce the following findings discussed later in the study (Merriam, 2009; Roberts-Holmes,2014).

It is worth stating that to assess the quality of social science research; four criteria of evaluation can be applied: validity, reliability, comprehensiveness (generalization) and coherence (objectivity) (Hugh 2001:49). These criteria have been found to be more applicable to quantitative. However,

Research paradigms are ‘the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by members of a given community’ (Kuhn, 1970, p.175). The three most common paradigms are positivism, constructivism or interpretivism and pragmatism. Each of these can be categorised further by examining their: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Fundamentally, ontology is the nature of reality, epistemology describes the relationship the investigator has with their version of reality, and methodology is the various techniques and tools used to analysis their research.