Positivism And Epistemology In Social Research

Chapter four of Creswell (2013) discusses the different research approaches. These approaches consist of: narrative research, phenomenological research, grounded theory research, ethnographic research, and case study research. Each of these research approaches has defining features, different categories within each type, procedures, and lastly, challenges.

According to Interpretivist, to understand the whole complexity of the world the simple fundamental laws that are used by positivist are not sufficient. They argue that the observing the intentional behaviour and actions of human beings is impossible.

The positivism perspective is an extension to the empiricism view on knowledge that states that knowledge comes from induction and observable experiences and that this knowledge is used to explain social phenomena (Benton & Craib, 2011). Nevertheless, the empiric view of knowledge on which positivism is based has long been subject to limitations. Immanuel Kant noted for instance that knowledge does not only come from the senses but also from a basic pallet of conceptual knowledge we all have. Furthermore, the interpretation of observations can differ due to the different way everyone acquires concepts. The claims done by Staman and Slob (2012) mentioned earlier are analyzed below for using this perspective on science.

Positivism or more specifically, logical positivism, is “maintained that science is value free, independent of the scientist, and obtained using objective methods” (McEwen & Wills, 2007, p.8). This leads to no biased interpretation of the data. In summary, objectivity and facts are the basis of received view.

28). Every aspect of the research process is influenced by epistemology, it guides the researcher in justifying the research methods (Carter & Little, 2007; Kramer-Kile, 2012), as it is asking what is knowledge, and how can that knowledge be acquired.

In order to critically compare positivism and anti-positivism, firstly the concepts themselves need to be defined. Positivism takes a scientific approach; it is value free, and takes on the idea that the world exists with only natural law, and the methodological approach of society are not taken into account. Positivism follows a structured process; observation, hypothesis, proof and then fact, similar to that seen in scientific or mathematical methods. It takes into account three main aspects. These are empiricism; the idea that all knowledge comes from the senses, naturalism; the idea that everything known comes from the natural world rather than the social realm and scepticism; the ability to disprove the findings. In Social Theory in the Twentieth Century by Patrick Baert, he describes positivism as ‘part of an attempt to sweep away the metaphysical burden of our western philosophical heritage’ going on to say that ‘positivism conceives of sensory observations as a solid foundation (if not the only foundation) for the development of scientific knowledge’ (Baert, 1998, p175). The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

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.

Research methodology and methodological approaches that is, the structured process of conducting research and the overall concepts and theories which underpin research respectively (Bryman, 2008), occupy a central position in the research process as they are both shaped by and translate the researcher’s epistemological position. Epistemology then refers to a researcher’s philosophical stance about the nature, derivation and scope of knowledge (Gilbert, 2008). These positions are seldom ‘spelt out’ but rather understood in the matter of research methodology and approach (Sarantakos, 2005).

Epistemology suggests the speculation of data embedded in the theoretical perspective and along these lines in the procedure. There are three branches of epistemology, which are positivism, constructivism and Interpretivist. Positivism has been viewed as a utilization of science, in light of the way that it assumes learning has been existed in target conviction. Constructivism and Interpretivist are not exactly the same as positivism, constructivism considered the diverse people make this open space. Besides, follows that learning could illuminate any marvel. (Quinlan, 2011).

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.

A second advantage of using positivist methods of research is that they allow the participant to give more personal and depth in their responses. Interpretivist methods of research focus on the individual rather than the responses collectively which allows the respondent to provide answers with feeling and meaning and also detailed responses.

The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the two articles that were given to us, in terms of whether or not they are using a scientific method and which of the two paradigms -constructivism/positivism- they are following. The first part of my assignment contains information about what is considered a “scientific method”. Afterwards follows an analysis on whether the two articles (“Criminal Behaviour in users of Psychoactive Substances Who Began Treatment”, “I just have to move on: Women’s coping experiences and reflections following their first year after primary breast cancer surgery”) are scientifically approved. Thence follows an interpretation on what is “constructivism”, “positivism” and in the end, an explanation concerning the two articles and which paradigm each of them follows.

A paradigm is essentially what guides the research conducted by a researcher. Qualitative and quantitative are the main two research paradigms that guide a researcher. These are basically beliefs about reality or ontology. This is called relativism and in this paradigm, the researcher believes that there are many qualitative perspectives of reality. Generally this type of research is subjective. Qualitative research analysis is generally inductive and focuses on experiences and perceptions of research participants. Research design methods for this paradigm include phenomenology (lived experience), ethnography (influence of culture) and grounded theory (social process) (NurseKillam, 2017).

The social science paradigm also known as Post positivism consists of testing hypothesis and research questions that are developed through reasoning. This is done through measurements and observation. Social scientists aspire to science and they seek to study human behaviour, interaction and thought in an organized way; which we can then measure, generalize and replicate. Like any research, post-positivism needs to be backed up by evidence. When a social science research sets out a research project, it is their goal to find evidence that can either agree or disagree with the hypothesis or theories. Post positivism, compared to positivism allows more interaction with the participants of the research project and seeks to highlight the relationship between universal properties between the variables. The best way to understand post positivism is by comparing it to positivism and the interpretive paradigm. Compared to positivism, post positivism is more tolerant for value-based information, however is not focused on qualitative information like the interpretive paradigm, instead the research is mainly focused on quantitative data.

Positivism is a rigorous and formal way to collect and analyze data that was developed around the 1960’s by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) who is also credited with formalizing it. Studies are clear and straight forward and researchers believe that there is only one method that all sciences should rely on. Positivism believes