field experiment positivist or interpretivist

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Sociology Revision - Methodology, Positivism and Interpretivism

28th April 2010

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

The last sections of our material on methods. The sections on positivism and interpretivism can be used to help you tackle the question of whether sociology is a science. It’s not a complete answer, but it does a lot of the work needed to get you there.

After that you will see a section on three vital concepts. If you know these well you can use them on a variety of questions - although that isn’t an invitation to keep repeating material. I don’t mean ‘know’, I mean ‘understand’. An understanding of validity, reliability, and representativeness can be applied to questions throughout the exam paper.

Positivism and Interpretivism

Positivism is the view that sociology can and should use the methods of the natural sciences, (e.g. physics and chemistry). That doesn’t usually mean using experiments because there are all sorts of ethical problems with doing that, but positivists do believe that sociologists should use quantitative methods and aim to identify and measure social structures. The classical example would be Durkheim’s study of suicide.

Anti-positivists, or interpretivists, argue the opposite. They take the view that since human beings think and reflect, scientific methods are inappropriate for the study of society. Unlike objects in nature, human beings can change their behaviour if they know they are being observed. So interpretivists argue that if we want to understand social action, we have to delve into the reasons and meanings which that action has for people. Take the example of crime. A positivist would argue that researchers can simply measure crime using quantitative methods and identify patterns and correlations. An interpretivist would argue that sociologists need to understand what people mean by crime, how they come to categorize certain actions as ‘criminal’ and then investigate who comes to be seen as criminal in a particular society.

These views thus reflect the main positions in a debate – now rather old – about whether sociology can or should be scientific. More recently, many sociologists avoid these polarised positions and adhere to what is called ‘realism’. Realists acknowledge that scientific methods are not foolproof (e.g. see Kuhn) and agree that humans are reflective. However, they would say that this doesn’t mean that either set of methods, positivist or interpretivist, have to be ditched. Realists argue that sociologists can be pragmatic and use whatever methods are appropriate for particular circumstances. Social reality is complex and to study it, sociologists can draw on both positivist and interpretivist methods.

Three Key Concepts

Reliability, Validity, and Representativeness

These are vital concepts, so learn them and get them right! Warning – they are easily confused, so you need to concentrate carefully.

Representativeness – is the research showing us what is typical? Can we make generalisations from it? A study of a group of girls from one town in the UK which found that they did better than boys in secondary school, but earn less than boys when they get work would be representative if it was found to be typical of most other towns in the UK. Sociologists interested in representativeness tend to be positivists – they want sociology to be scientific.

Reliability – if a research finding can be replicated the research is reliable. Positivists (see below) see this as a desirable characteristic, because they want sociology to be like science. Look at it this way; if an experiment kept giving different sets of results, scientists would say they were unreliable. So, sociologists taking a positivist approach want their research to be reliable. Scientific findings are supposed to be reliable – if different scientists repeat important experiments, they are supposed to get the same results. The idea is that if results can be repeated, they are likely to be true.

Validity – Not the same thing as reliability at all. It simply means – does the research ‘give a true picture’ of reality? Are the findings valid? A more complicated definition of validity is to say it’s about whether the research measures what it is supposed to measure. This is a more theoretical definition and relates to what is called ‘operationalisation’. Operationalisation is about how a researcher defines some aspect of society they want to study. Examples would be class, gender or educational attainment. The last two are fairly easy – we use the indicators of sex or level of qualifications attained. But things – social structures or forces like class are impossible to see, so researchers have to pick something observable to indicate the presence of a particular part of society.

This gets difficult! The best or at least, most important example is Durkheim’s study of suicide. Durkheim argued that suicide rates were caused by the level of social integration (impossible to see) in a society. However, interpretivist (or anti-positivists) critics argue that Durkheim wasn’t really measuring social integration, but rather the likelihood of coroners to bring in suicide verdicts, which was in itself heavily dependent on their own religious beliefs.

Good research would ideally be reliable, valid and representative. In reality, it’s very hard for any single piece of research to be really robust on all of these criteria. Some research does come close to it though, when methods are triangulated; that is, researchers use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods, thus making it easier to achieve all three of these key criteria. But researchers do not always triangulate in this way; it does very much depend on their theoretical approach and the aims of a particular research project.

Jim co-founded tutor2u alongside his twin brother Geoff! Jim is a well-known Business writer and presenter as well as being one of the UK's leading educational technology entrepreneurs.

You might also like

Our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Interpretivism Paradigm & Research Philosophy

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

The interpretivist paradigm is a research approach in sociology that focuses on understanding the subjective meanings and experiences of individuals within their social context.

Key Takeaways

• Interpretivism is an approach to social science that asserts that understanding the beliefs, motivations, and reasoning of individuals in a social situation is essential to decoding the meaning of the data that can be collected around a phenomenon.
• There are numerous interpretivist approaches to sociology, three of the most influential of which are hermeneutics, phenomenology and ethnomethodology, and symbolic interactionism.
• Sociologists who have adopted an interpretivists approach include Weber, Garfinkle, Bulmer, Goffman, Cooley, Mead, and Husser.
• Interpretivists use both qualitative and quantitative research methods. However, they believe that there is no one “right path” to knowledge, thus rejecting the idea that there is one methodology that will consistently get at the “truth” of a phenomenon.
• Interpretivist approaches to research differ from positivist ones in their emphasis on qualitative data and focus on context.

The Interpretivist Paradigm

Interpretivism uses qualitative research methods that focus on individuals” beliefs, motivations, and reasoning over quantitative data to gain understanding of social interactions.

Interpretivists assume that access to reality happens through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared meanings, and instruments (Myers, 2008).

What is a Paradigm?

A paradigm is a set of ideas and beliefs which provide a framework or model which research can follow. A paradigm defines existing knowledge, the nature of the problem(s) to be investigated, appropriate methods of investigation, and the way data should be analyzed and interpreted.

The interpretivist paradigm developed as a critique of positivism in the social sciences

Interpretivism has its roots in idealistic philosophy. The umbrella term has also been used to group together schools of thought ranging from social constructivism to phenomenology and hermeneutics: approaches that reject the view that meaning exists in the world independently of people”s consciousness and interpretation.

Because meaning exists through the lens of people, interpretivist approaches to social science consider it important for researchers to appreciate the differences between people, and seek to understand how these differences inform how people find meaning.

The Interpretivist Assumptions

The interpretive approach is based on the following assumptions:

Human life can only be understood from within

According to interpretivism, individuals have consciousness. This means that they are not merely coerced puppets that react to social forces in the way that positivists mean. This has the result that people in a society are intricate and complex.

Different people in a society experience and understand the same “objective” reality in different ways, and have individual reasons for their actions (Alharahshel & Pius, 2020; Bhattacherjee, 2012).

This more sense-based approach of interpretivism to research has roots in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics, and has been used since the early 19th century, long before the development of positivist sociology.

The social world does not “exist” independently of human knowledge

Interpretivists do not deny that there is an external reality. However, they do not accept that there is an independently knowable reality.

Contrary to positivist approaches to sociology, interpretivists assert that all research is influenced and shaped by the pre-existing theories and worldviews of the researchers.

Terms, procedures, and data used in research have meaning because a group of academics have agreed that these things have meaning. This makes research a socially constructed activity, which means phenomena is created by society and not naturally occurring. It will vary from culture to culture.

Consequently, the reality that research tells us is also socially constructed (Alharahshel & Pius, 2020).

Research should be based on qualitative methods

Interpretivists also use a broad range of qualitative methods . They also accept reflective discussions of how researchers do research, considering these to be prized sources of knowledge and understanding.

This is in contrast to post positivists, who generally consider their reflections and personal stories of researchers to be unacceptable as research because they are neither scientific nor objective (Smith, 1993).

The term interpretive research is often used synonymously with qualitative research , but the two concepts are different. Interpretive research is a research paradigm, or set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed (Kuhn, 1970).

Because interpretivists see social reality as embedded within and impossible to abstract from their social settings, they attempt to make “sense” of reality rather than testing hypotheses.

Research should be based on a grounded theory

There can be causal explanation in sociology but there is no need for a hypothesis before starting research. By stating an hypothesis at the start of the study Glaser and Strauss argue that researchers run the risk of imposing their own views on the data rather than those of the actors being researched.

Instead, there should be a grounded theory which means allowing ideas to emerge as the data is collected which can later be used to produce a testable hypothesis.

Research Design

Interpretivists believe that there is no particular right or correct path to knowledge, and no special method that automatically leads to intellectual progress (Smith, 1993). This means that interpretivists are antifoundationalists.

Interpretivists, however, accept that there are standards that guide research. However, they believe that these standards cannot be universal. Instead, interpretivists believe that research standards are the products of a particular group or culture

Interpretivists do not always abandon standards such as the rules of the scientific method; they simply accept that whatever standards are used are subjective, and potentially able to fail, rather than objective and universal (Smith, 1993).

Qualitative Methods

Qualitative data is virtually any type of information that can be observed and recorded, not numerical, and can be in the form of written or verbal communication.

Interpretivists can collect qualitative data using a variety of techniques. The most frequent of these is interviews. These can manifest in many forms, such as face-to-face, over the telephone, or f ocus groups . Another technique for interpretivist data collection is observation.

Observation can include direct observation, a technique common to case research where the researcher is a neutral and passive external observer and is not involved in the phenomena that they are studying.

Interpretivists can also use documentation as a data collecting technique, collecting external and internal documents , such as memos, emails, annual reports, financial statements, newspaper articles, websites, and so on, to cast further insight into a phenomenon of interest or to corroborate other forms of evidence (Smith, 1993).

Case Research

Case research is an intensive, longitudinal study of a phenomenon at least one research site that intends to derive detailed, contextualized inferences and understand the dynamics that underlie the phenomenon that is being studied.

In this research design, the case researcher is a neutral observer, rather than an active participant. In the end, drawing meaningful inferences from case research largely depends on the observational skills and integrative abilities of the research (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2013).

Action Research

Action research, meanwhile, is a qualitative albeit positivist research design aimed at testing, rather than building theories.

Action research designs interaction, assuming that complex social phenomena are best understood by introducing changes, interventions, or “Actions” into the phenomena being studied and observing the outcomes of such actions on that phenomena.

Usually, the researcher in this method is a consultant or organizational member embedded into a social context who initiates an action in response to a social problem, and examines how their action influences the phenomenon while also learning and generating insights about the relationship between the action and the phenomenon.

Some examples of actions may include organizational changes, such as through introducing people or technology, initiated with the goal of improving an organization”s performance or profitability as a business.

The researcher”s choice of actions may be based on theory which explains why and how certain actions could bring forth desired social changes (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2013).

Interpretivist Sociological Perspectives

There are three major interpretivist approaches to sociology (Williams, 2000):

Hermeneutics , which refers to the philosophy of interpretation and understanding. Often, Hermeneutics focuses on influential, ancient texts, such as scripture.

Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology , which is a philosophical tradition that seeks to understand the world through directly experiencing the phenomena within it. Ethnomethodology , which has a phenomenological foundation, is the study of how people make sense of and navigate their everyday world through norms and rituals.

Symbolic interaction , which accepts symbols as culturally derived social objects that have shared meanings. These symbols provide a means to construct reality.

Hermeneutics

Originally, the term hermeneutics referred exclusively to the study of sacred texts such as the Talmud or the Bible.

Hermeneuticists originally used various methods to get at the meaning of these texts, such as through studying the meaning of terms and phrases from the document in other writings from the same era, the social and political context in which the passage was written, and the way the concepts discussed are used in other parts of the document (Williams, 2000).

Gradually, however, hermeneutics expanded beyond this original meaning to include understanding human action in context.

There are many variations on hermeneutics; however, Smith (1991) concluded that they all share two characteristics in common:

An emphasis on the importance of language in understanding, because language can both limit and make possible what people can say,

An emphasis on the context, particularly the historical one, as a frame for understanding, because human behavior and ideas must be understood in context, rather than in isolation.

Hermeneutics has several different subcategories, including validation, critical, and philosophical. The first of these, validation, is based on post positivism and assumes that hermeneutics can be a scientific way to find the truth.

Critical hermeneutics is focused on critical theory, and aims to highlight the historical conditions that lead to oppression.

Finally, philosophical hermeneutics aims to develop understanding and rejects the idea that there is a certain research method that will uncover the truth without fail (Smith, 1991).

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a type of social action theory that focuses on studying people’s perceptions of the world.

Understanding different perspectives often call for different methods of research and different ways of reporting results. Research methods that attempt to examine the subjective perceptions of the person being studied are often called phenomenological research methods.

Interpretivists generally tend to use qualitative methods such as case studies and ethnography, writing reports that are rich in detail in order to depict the context needed for understanding.

Ethnography

Ethnography, a research method derived largely from anthropology, emphasizes studying a phenomenon within the context of its culture.

In practice, an ethnographic researcher must immerse themself into a social culture over an extended period of time and engage, observe, and record the daily life of the culture being studied and its social participants within their natural setting.

In addition, ethnographic researchers must take extensive field notes and narrate their experience in descriptive detail so that readers can experience the same culture as the researcher.

This gives the researcher two roles: relying on their unique knowledge and engagement to generate insights, and convincing the scientific community that this behavior applies across different situations (Schwandt, 1994).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism starts which the assumptions that humans inhabit a symbolic world, in which symbols, such as language, have a shared meaning.

The social world is therefore constructed by the meaning that individual attach to events and phenomena and these are transmitted across generations through language.

A central concept of symbolic interactionism is the Self , which allows individuals to calculate the effects of their actions.

Interpretivist Research Designs

Interpretivists can collect qualitative data using a variety of techniques. The most frequent of these are interviews. These can manifest in many forms, such as face-to-face, over the telephone, or in focus groups.

Another technique for interpretivist data collection is observation. Observation can include direct observation, a technique common to case research where the researcher is a neutral and passive external observer and is not involved in the phenomena that they are studying.

Thirdly, interpretivists can use documentation as a data collecting technique, collecting external and internal documents, such as memos, emails, annual reports, financial statements, newspaper articles, websites, and so on — to cast further insight into a phenomenon of interest or to corroborate other forms of evidence (Smith, 1993).

Some examples of actions may include organizational changes, such as through introducing people or technology, initiated with the goal of improving an organization’s performance or profitability as a business.

Examples of Interpretive Research

Decision making in businesses.

Although interpretive research tends to rely heavily on qualitative data, quantitative data can add more precision and create a clearer understanding of the phenomenon being studied than qualitative data.

For example, Eisenhardt (1989) conducted an interpretive study of decision-making in high-velocity firms.

Eisenhardt collected numerical data on how long it took each firm to make certain strategic decisions (ranging from 1.5 months to 18 months), how many decision alternatives were considered for each decision, and surveyed her respondents to capture their perceptions of organizational conflict.

This numerical data helped Eisenhardt to clearly distinguish high-speed decision making firms from low-speed decision makers without relying on respondents” subjective perceptions.

This differentiation then allowed Eisenhardt to examine the number of decision alternatives considered by and the extent of conflict in high-speed and low-speed firms.

Eisenhardt”s study is one example of how interpretivist researchers can use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data to study their phenomena of interest.

Teaching and Technology

Waxman and Huang (1996) conducted an interpretivist study on the relationship between computers and teaching strategies.

While positivists and post positivists may use the data from that study to make a general statement about the relationship between computers and teaching strategies, interpretivists would argue that the context of the study could alter this general conclusion entirely.

For example, Waxman and Huang (1996) mention in their paper that the school district where the data were collected had provided training for teachers that emphasized the use of “constructivist” approaches to teaching and learning.

This training may mean that the study would have generated different results in a school district where teachers were provided extensive training on a different teaching method.

Interpretivists are concerned about how data are situated, and how this context can affect the data.

Interpretivism vs. Positivism

Whereas positivism looks for universals based on data, interpretivism looks for an understanding of a particular context, because this context is critical to interpreting the data gathered.

Generally, interpretivist research is prepared to sacrifice reliability and representativeness for greater validity while positivism requires research to be valid, reliable, and representative.

While a positivist may use largely quantitative research methods, official statistics, social surveys, questionnaires, and structured interviews to conduct research, interpretivists may rely on qualitative methods, such as personal documents , participant observation, and unstructured interviews (Alharahshel & Pius, 2020; Bhattacherjee, 2012).

Interprevists and positivists also differ in how they see the relationship between the society and the individual. Positivists believe that society shapes the individual, and that society consists of “social facts” that exercise coercive control over individuals.

This means that people”s actions can generally be explained by the social norms that they have been exposed to through socialization, social class, gender, and ethnic background.

Many positivist researchers view interpretive research as erroneous and biased, given the subjective nature of qualitative data collection and the process of interpretation used in such research.

However, the failure of many positivist techniques to generate insights has resulted in a resurgence of interest in interpretive research since the 1970s, now informed with exacting methods and criteria to ensure the reliability and validity of interpretive inferences (Bhattacherjee, 2012).

Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism . Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2 (3), 39-43.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices . University of South Florida.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (3), 543-576.

Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research .  European journal of information systems, 21 (2), 135-146.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Volume 4: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science , London, 1965 (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

Myers, M. D. (2008). Qualitative Research in Business & Management . SAGE Publications.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of qualitative research, 1 (1994), 118-137.

Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2013). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes . Routledge.

Smith, D. G. (1991). Hermeneutic inquiry: The hermeneutic imagination and the pedagogic text. Forms of curriculum inquiry , 3.

Smith, J. K. (1993). After the demise of empiricism: The problem of judging social and education inquiry .

Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. Y. L. (1996). Classroom instruction differences by level of technology use in middle school mathematics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14 (2), 157-169.

Walsham, G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research .  Information systems research, 6 (4), 376-394.

Williams, M. (2000). Interpretivism and generalisation. Sociology, 34 (2), 209-224.

Field Experiments in sociology

Table of Contents

Last Updated on February 24, 2023 by Karl Thompson

Field Experiments take place in  real-life settings such as a classroom, the work place or even the high street. Field experiments are much more common in sociology than laboratory experiments. In fact sociologists hardly ever use lab experiments because the artificial environment of the laboratory is so far removed from real life that most sociologists believe that the results gained from such experiments tell us very little about how respondents would actually act in real life.

It is actually quite easy to set up a field experiment. If you wanted to measure the effectiveness of different teaching methods on educational performance in a school for example, all you would need to do is to get teachers to administer a short test to measure current performance levels, and then get them to change one aspect of their teaching for one class, or for a sample of some pupils, but not for the others, for a period of time (say one term) and then measure and compare the results of all pupils at the end.

You need to know about field experiments for the research methods component of A-level sociology and the AQA exam board does seem to like setting exam questions on experiments!

The advantages of Field Experiments over Lab Experiments

Better external validity – The big advantage which field experiments obviously have better external validity than lab experiments, because they take place in normally occurring social settings.

Larger Scale Settings – Practically it is possible to do field experiments in large institutions – in schools or workplaces in which thousands of people interact for example, which isn’t possible in laboratory experiments.

The disadvantages of Field Experiments

It is not possible to control variables as closely as with laboratory experiments – With the Rosenthal and Jacobson experiment, for example we simply don’t know what else might have influenced the ‘spurting group’ besides ‘higher teacher expectations’.

The Hawthorne Effect (or Experimental Effect) may reduce the validity of results. The Hawthorne effect is where respondents may act differently just because they know they are part of an experiment. The Hawthorne Effect was a phrase coined by Elton Mayo (1927) who did research into workers’ productivity at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant. With the workers agreement (they knew that an experiment was taking place, and the purpose of the experiment), Mayo set about varying things such as lighting levels, the speed of conveyor belts and toilet breaks. However, whatever he did, the worker’s productivity always increased from the norm, even when conditions were worsened. He concluded that the respondents were simply trying to please the researcher. NB – The Hawthorne effect can also apply to laboratory experiments.

Practical Problems – Access is likely to be more of a problem with lab experiments. Schools and workplaces might be reluctant to allow researchers in.

Rosenthal and Jacobson’s 1968 Field Experiment

Rosenthal and Jacobson’s classic 1968 field experiment on the effects of teacher expectations (aka Pygmalion in the Classroom) illustrates some of the strengths and limitation of this method

The aim of this research was to measure the effect of high teacher expectation on the educational performance of pupils.

Rosenthal and Jacobsen concluded that higher teacher expectations were responsible for this difference in achievement.

Limitations of the Experiment

Reliability is a problem : while the research design was relatively simple and thus easy to repeat (in fact within five years of the original study this was repeated 242 times) the exact conditions are not possible to repeat – given differences between schools and the type and mixture of pupils who attend different schools.

Seven Examples of Field Experiments in Sociology

Are Chinese Teaching Methods the Best?  – A Field Experiment in ‘tough teaching methods’ in the UK conducted in 2015.

Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle 

Share this:

7 thoughts on “field experiments in sociology”, leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Chapter 12 Interpretive Research

The last chapter introduced interpretive research, or more specifically, interpretive case research. This chapter will explore other kinds of interpretive research. Recall that positivist or deductive methods, such as laboratory experiments and survey research, are those that are specifically intended for theory (or hypotheses) testing, while interpretive or inductive methods, such as action research and ethnography, are intended for theory building. Unlike a positivist method, where the researcher starts with a theory and tests theoretical postulates using empirical data, in interpretive methods, the researcher starts with data and tries to derive a theory about the phenomenon of interest from the observed data.

The term “interpretive research” is often used loosely and synonymously with “qualitative research”, although the two concepts are quite different. Interpretive research is a research paradigm (see Chapter 3) that is based on the assumption that social reality is not singular or objective, but is rather shaped by human experiences and social contexts (ontology), and is therefore best studied within its socio-historic context by reconciling the subjective interpretations of its various participants (epistemology). Because interpretive researchers view social reality as being embedded within and impossible to abstract from their social settings, they “interpret” the reality though a “sense-making” process rather than a hypothesis testing process. This is in contrast to the positivist or functionalist paradigm that assumes that the reality is relatively independent of the context, can be abstracted from their contexts, and studied in a decomposable functional manner using objective techniques such as standardized measures. Whether a researcher should pursue interpretive or positivist research depends on paradigmatic considerations about the nature of the phenomenon under consideration and the best way to study it.

However, qualitative versus quantitative research refers to empirical or data -oriented considerations about the type of data to collect and how to analyze them. Qualitative research relies mostly on non-numeric data, such as interviews and observations, in contrast to quantitative research which employs numeric data such as scores and metrics. Hence, qualitative research is not amenable to statistical procedures such as regression analysis, but is coded using techniques like content analysis. Sometimes, coded qualitative data is tabulated quantitatively as frequencies of codes, but this data is not statistically analyzed. Many puritan interpretive researchers reject this coding approach as a futile effort to seek consensus or objectivity in a social phenomenon which is essentially subjective.

Although interpretive research tends to rely heavily on qualitative data, quantitative data may add more precision and clearer understanding of the phenomenon of interest than qualitative data. For example, Eisenhardt (1989), in her interpretive study of decision making n high-velocity firms (discussed in the previous chapter on case research), collected numeric data on how long it took each firm to make certain strategic decisions (which ranged from 1.5 months to 18 months), how many decision alternatives were considered for each decision, and surveyed her respondents to capture their perceptions of organizational conflict. Such numeric data helped her clearly distinguish the high-speed decision making firms from the low-speed decision makers, without relying on respondents’ subjective perceptions, which then allowed her to examine the number of decision alternatives considered by and the extent of conflict in high-speed versus low-speed firms. Interpretive research should attempt to collect both qualitative and quantitative data pertaining to their phenomenon of interest, and so should positivist research as well. Joint use of qualitative and quantitative data, often called “mixed-mode designs”, may lead to unique insights and are highly prized in the scientific community.

Interpretive research has its roots in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics, and has been available since the early 19 th century, long before positivist techniques were developed. Many positivist researchers view interpretive research as erroneous and biased, given the subjective nature of the qualitative data collection and interpretation process employed in such research. However, the failure of many positivist techniques to generate interesting insights or new knowledge have resulted in a resurgence of interest in interpretive research since the 1970’s, albeit with exacting methods and stringent criteria to ensure the reliability and validity of interpretive inferences.

Distinctions from Positivist Research

In addition to fundamental paradigmatic differences in ontological and epistemological assumptions discussed above, interpretive and positivist research differ in several other ways. First, interpretive research employs a theoretical sampling strategy, where study sites, respondents, or cases are selected based on theoretical considerations such as whether they fit the phenomenon being studied (e.g., sustainable practices can only be studied in organizations that have implemented sustainable practices), whether they possess certain characteristics that make them uniquely suited for the study (e.g., a study of the drivers of firm innovations should include some firms that are high innovators and some that are low innovators, in order to draw contrast between these firms), and so forth. In contrast, positivist research employs random sampling (or a variation of this technique), where cases are chosen randomly from a population, for purposes of generalizability. Hence, convenience samples and small samples are considered acceptable in interpretive research as long as they fit the nature and purpose of the study, but not in positivist research.

Second, the role of the researcher receives critical attention in interpretive research. In some methods such as ethnography, action research, and participant observation, the researcher is considered part of the social phenomenon, and her specific role and involvement in the research process must be made clear during data analysis. In other methods, such as case research, the researcher must take a “neutral” or unbiased stance during the data collection and analysis processes, and ensure that her personal biases or preconceptions does not taint the nature of subjective inferences derived from interpretive research. In positivist research, however, the researcher is considered to be external to and independent of the research context and is not presumed to bias the data collection and analytic procedures.

Third, interpretive analysis is holistic and contextual, rather than being reductionist and isolationist. Interpretive interpretations tend to focus on language, signs, and meanings from the perspective of the participants involved in the social phenomenon, in contrast to statistical techniques that are employed heavily in positivist research. Rigor in interpretive research is viewed in terms of systematic and transparent approaches for data collection and analysis rather than statistical benchmarks for construct validity or significance testing.

Lastly, data collection and analysis can proceed simultaneously and iteratively in interpretive research. For instance, the researcher may conduct an interview and code it before proceeding to the next interview. Simultaneous analysis helps the researcher correct potential flaws in the interview protocol or adjust it to capture the phenomenon of interest better. The researcher may even change her original research question if she realizes that her original research questions are unlikely to generate new or useful insights. This is a valuable but often understated benefit of interpretive research, and is not available in positivist research, where the research project cannot be modified or changed once the data collection has started without redoing the entire project from the start.

Benefits and Challenges of Interpretive Research

Interpretive research has several unique advantages. First, they are well-suited for exploring hidden reasons behind complex, interrelated, or multifaceted social processes, such as inter-firm relationships or inter-office politics, where quantitative evidence may be biased, inaccurate, or otherwise difficult to obtain. Second, they are often helpful for theory construction in areas with no or insufficient a priori theory. Third, they are also appropriate for studying context-specific, unique, or idiosyncratic events or processes. Fourth, interpretive research can also help uncover interesting and relevant research questions and issues for follow-up research.

At the same time, interpretive research also has its own set of challenges. First, this type of research tends to be more time and resource intensive than positivist research in data collection and analytic efforts. Too little data can lead to false or premature assumptions, while too much data may not be effectively processed by the researcher. Second, interpretive research requires well-trained researchers who are capable of seeing and interpreting complex social phenomenon from the perspectives of the embedded participants and reconciling the diverse perspectives of these participants, without injecting their personal biases or preconceptions into their inferences. Third, all participants or data sources may not be equally credible, unbiased, or knowledgeable about the phenomenon of interest, or may have undisclosed political agendas, which may lead to misleading or false impressions. Inadequate trust between participants and researcher may hinder full and honest self-representation by participants, and such trust building takes time. It is the job of the interpretive researcher to

“see through the smoke” (hidden or biased agendas) and understand the true nature of the problem. Fourth, given the heavily contextualized nature of inferences drawn from interpretive research, such inferences do not lend themselves well to replicability or generalizability. Finally, interpretive research may sometimes fail to answer the research questions of interest or predict future behaviors.

Characteristics of Interpretive Research

All interpretive research must adhere to a common set of principles, as described below.

Naturalistic inquiry: Social phenomena must be studied within their natural setting. Because interpretive research assumes that social phenomena are situated within and cannot be isolated from their social context, interpretations of such phenomena must be grounded within their socio-historical context. This implies that contextual variables should be observed and considered in seeking explanations of a phenomenon of interest, even though context sensitivity may limit the generalizability of inferences.

Researcher as instrument: Researchers are often embedded within the social context that they are studying, and are considered part of the data collection instrument in that they must use their observational skills, their trust with the participants, and their ability to extract the correct information. Further, their personal insights, knowledge, and experiences of the social context is critical to accurately interpreting the phenomenon of interest. At the same time, researchers must be fully aware of their personal biases and preconceptions, and not let such biases interfere with their ability to present a fair and accurate portrayal of the phenomenon.

Interpretive analysis: Observations must be interpreted through the eyes of the participants embedded in the social context. Interpretation must occur at two levels. The first level involves viewing or experiencing the phenomenon from the subjective perspectives of the social participants. The second level is to understand the meaning of the participants’ experiences in order to provide a “thick description” or a rich narrative story of the phenomenon of interest that can communicate why participants acted the way they did.

Use of expressive language: Documenting the verbal and non-verbal language of participants and the analysis of such language are integral components of interpretive analysis. The study must ensure that the story is viewed through the eyes of a person, and not a machine, and must depict the emotions and experiences of that person, so that readers can understand and relate to that person. Use of imageries, metaphors, sarcasm, and other figures of speech is very common in interpretive analysis.

Temporal nature: Interpretive research is often not concerned with searching for specific answers, but with understanding or “making sense of” a dynamic social process as it unfolds over time. Hence, such research requires an immersive involvement of the researcher at the study site for an extended period of time in order to capture the entire evolution of the phenomenon of interest.

Hermeneutic circle: Interpretive interpretation is an iterative process of moving back and forth from pieces of observations (text) to the entirety of the social phenomenon (context) to reconcile their apparent discord and to construct a theory that is consistent with the diverse subjective viewpoints and experiences of the embedded participants. Such iterations between the understanding/meaning of a phenomenon and observations must continue until “theoretical saturation” is reached, whereby any additional iteration does not yield any more insight into the phenomenon of interest.

Interpretive Data Collection

Data is collected in interpretive research using a variety of techniques. The most frequently used technique is interviews (face-to-face, telephone, or focus groups). Interview types and strategies are discussed in detail in a previous chapter on survey research. A second technique is observation . Observational techniques include direct observation , where the researcher is a neutral and passive external observer and is not involved in the phenomenon of interest (as in case research), and participant observation , where the researcher is an active participant in the phenomenon and her inputs or mere presence influence the phenomenon being studied (as in action research). A third technique is documentation , where external and internal documents, such as memos, electronic mails, annual reports, financial statements, newspaper articles, websites, may be used to cast further insight into the phenomenon of interest or to corroborate other forms of evidence.

Interpretive Research Designs

Case research . As discussed in the previous chapter, case research is an intensive longitudinal study of a phenomenon at one or more research sites for the purpose of deriving detailed, contextualized inferences and understanding the dynamic process underlying a phenomenon of interest. Case research is a unique research design in that it can be used in an interpretive manner to build theories or in a positivist manner to test theories. The previous chapter on case research discusses both techniques in depth and provides illustrative exemplars. Furthermore, the case researcher is a neutral observer (direct observation) in the social setting rather than an active participant (participant observation). As with any other interpretive approach, drawing meaningful inferences from case research depends heavily on the observational skills and integrative abilities of the researcher.

Action research . Action research is a qualitative but positivist research design aimed at theory testing rather than theory building (discussed in this chapter due to lack of a proper space). This is an interactive design that assumes that complex social phenomena are best understood by introducing changes, interventions, or “actions” into those phenomena and observing the outcomes of such actions on the phenomena of interest. In this method, the researcher is usually a consultant or an organizational member embedded into a social context (such as an organization), who initiates an action in response to a social problem, and examines how her action influences the phenomenon while also learning and generating insights about the relationship between the action and the phenomenon. Examples of actions may include organizational change programs, such as the introduction of new organizational processes, procedures, people, or technology or replacement of old ones, initiated with the goal of improving an organization’s performance or profitability in its business environment. The researcher’s choice of actions must be based on theory, which should explain why and how such actions may bring forth the desired social change. The theory is validated by the extent to which the chosen action is successful in remedying the targeted problem. Simultaneous problem solving and insight generation is the central feature that distinguishes action research from other research methods (which may not involve problem solving) and from consulting (which may not involve insight generation). Hence, action research is an excellent method for bridging research and practice.

There are several variations of the action research method. The most popular of these method is the participatory action research, designed by Susman and Evered (1978) [13] . This method follows an action research cycle consisting of five phases: (1) diagnosing, (2) action planning, (3) action taking, (4) evaluating, and (5) learning (see Figure 10.1). Diagnosing involves identifying and defining a problem in its social context. Action planning involves identifying and evaluating alternative solutions to the problem, and deciding on a future course of action (based on theoretical rationale). Action taking is the implementation of the planned course of action. The evaluation stage examines the extent to which the initiated action is successful in resolving the original problem, i.e., whether theorized effects are indeed realized in practice. In the learning phase, the experiences and feedback from action evaluation are used to generate insights about the problem and suggest future modifications or improvements to the action. Based on action evaluation and learning, the action may be modified or adjusted to address the problem better, and the action research cycle is repeated with the modified action sequence. It is suggested that the entire action research cycle be traversed at least twice so that learning from the first cycle can be implemented in the second cycle. The primary mode of data collection is participant observation, although other techniques such as interviews and documentary evidence may be used to corroborate the researcher’s observations.

Figure 10.1. Action research cycle

Ethnography . The ethnographic research method, derived largely from the field of anthropology, emphasizes studying a phenomenon within the context of its culture. The researcher must be deeply immersed in the social culture over an extended period of time (usually 8 months to 2 years) and should engage, observe, and record the daily life of the studied culture and its social participants within their natural setting. The primary mode of data collection is participant observation, and data analysis involves a “sense-making” approach. In addition, the researcher must take extensive field notes, and narrate her experience in descriptive detail so that readers may experience the same culture as the researcher. In this method, the researcher has two roles: rely on her unique knowledge and engagement to generate insights (theory), and convince the scientific community of the trans-situational nature of the studied phenomenon.

The classic example of ethnographic research is Jane Goodall’s study of primate behaviors, where she lived with chimpanzees in their natural habitat at Gombe National Park in Tanzania, observed their behaviors, interacted with them, and shared their lives. During that process, she learnt and chronicled how chimpanzees seek food and shelter, how they socialize with each other, their communication patterns, their mating behaviors, and so forth. A more contemporary example of ethnographic research is Myra Bluebond-Langer’s (1996) [14] study of decision making in families with children suffering from life-threatening illnesses, and the physical, psychological, environmental, ethical, legal, and cultural issues that influence such decision-making. The researcher followed the experiences of approximately 80 children with incurable illnesses and their families for a period of over two years. Data collection involved participant observation and formal/informal conversations with children, their parents and relatives, and health care providers to document their lived experience.

Phenomenology. Phenomenology is a research method that emphasizes the study of conscious experiences as a way of understanding the reality around us. It is based on the ideas of German philosopher Edmund Husserl in the early 20 th century who believed that human experience is the source of all knowledge. Phenomenology is concerned with the systematic reflection and analysis of phenomena associated with conscious experiences, such as human judgment, perceptions, and actions, with the goal of (1) appreciating and describing social reality from the diverse subjective perspectives of the participants involved, and (2) understanding the symbolic meanings (“deep structure”) underlying these subjective experiences. Phenomenological inquiry requires that researchers eliminate any prior assumptions and personal biases, empathize with the participant’s situation, and tune into existential dimensions of that situation, so that they can fully understand the deep structures that drives the conscious thinking, feeling, and behavior of the studied participants.

Figure 10.2. The existential phenomenological research method

Some researchers view phenomenology as a philosophy rather than as a research method. In response to this criticism, Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) [15] developed an existential phenomenological research method to guide studies in this area. This method, illustrated in Figure 10.2, can be grouped into data collection and data analysis phases. In the data collection phase, participants embedded in a social phenomenon are interviewed to capture their subjective experiences and perspectives regarding the phenomenon under investigation.

Examples of questions that may be asked include “can you describe a typical day” or “can you describe that particular incident in more detail?” These interviews are recorded and transcribed for further analysis. During data analysis , the researcher reads the transcripts to:

(1) get a sense of the whole, and (2) establish “units of significance” that can faithfully represent participants’ subjective experiences. Examples of such units of significance are concepts such as “felt space” and “felt time,” which are then used to document participants’ psychological experiences. For instance, did participants feel safe, free, trapped, or joyous when experiencing a phenomenon (“felt-space”)? Did they feel that their experience was pressured, slow, or discontinuous (“felt-time”)? Phenomenological analysis should take into account the participants’ temporal landscape (i.e., their sense of past, present, and future), and the researcher must transpose herself in an imaginary sense in the participant’s situati on (i.e., temporarily live the participant’s life). The participants’ lived experience is described in form of a narrative or using emergent themes. The analysis then delves into these themes to identify multiple layers of meaning while retaining the fragility and ambiguity of subjects’ lived experiences.

Rigor in Interpretive Research

While positivist research employs a “reductionist” approach by simplifying social reality into parsimonious theories and laws, interpretive research attempts to interpret social reality through the subjective viewpoints of the embedded participants within the context where the reality is situated. These interpretations are heavily contextualized, and are naturally less generalizable to other contexts. However, because interpretive analysis is subjective and sensitive to the experiences and insight of the embedded researcher, it is often considered less rigorous by many positivist (functionalist) researchers. Because interpretive research is based on different set of ontological and epistemological assumptions about social phenomenon than positivist research, the positivist notions of rigor, such as reliability, internal validity, and generalizability, do not apply in a similar manner. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) [16] provide an alternative set of criteria that can be used to judge the rigor of interpretive research.

Dependability. Interpretive research can be viewed as dependable or authentic if two researchers assessing the same phenomenon using the same set of evidence independently arrive at the same conclusions or the same researcher observing the same or a similar phenomenon at different times arrives at similar conclusions. This concept is similar to that of reliability in positivist research, with agreement between two independent researchers being similar to the notion of inter-rater reliability, and agreement between two observations of the same phenomenon by the same researcher akin to test -retest reliability. To ensure dependability, interpretive researchers must provide adequate details about their phenomenon of interest and the social context in which it is embedded so as to allow readers to independently authenticate their interpretive inferences.

Credibility. Interpretive research can be considered credible if readers find its inferences to be believable. This concept is akin to that of internal validity in functionalistic research. The credibility of interpretive research can be improved by providing evidence of the researcher’s extended engagement in the field, by demonstrating data triangulation across subjects or data collection techniques, and by maintaining meticulous data management and analytic procedures, such as verbatim transcription of interviews, accurate records of contacts and interviews, and clear notes on theoretical and methodological decisions, that can allow an independent audit of data collection and analysis if needed.

Confirmability. Confirmability refers to the extent to which the findings reported in interpretive research can be independently confirmed by others (typically, participants). This is similar to the notion of objectivity in functionalistic research. Since interpretive research rejects the notion of an objective reality, confirmability is demonstrated in terms of “inter-subjectivity”, i.e., if the study’s participants agree with the inferences derived by the researcher. For instance, if a study’s participants generally agree with the inferences drawn by a researcher about a phenomenon of interest (based on a review of the research paper or report), then the findings can be viewed as confirmable.

Transferability. Transferability in interpretive research refers to the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other settings. This idea is similar to that of external validity in functionalistic research. The researcher must provide rich, detailed descriptions of the research context (“thick description”) and thoroughly describe the structures, assumptions, and processes revealed from the data so that readers can independently assess whether and to what extent are the reported findings transferable to other settings.

[13] Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D. (1978). “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research,”

Administrative Science Quarterly , (23), 582-603.

[14] Bluebond-Langer, M. (1996). In the Shadow of Illness: Parents and Siblings of the Chronically Ill Child . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[15] Giorgi, A and Giorgi, B (2003) Phenomenology. In J A Smith (ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods . London: Sage Publications.

[16] Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

• Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Authored by : Anol Bhattacherjee. Provided by : University of South Florida. Located at : http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Interpretivism: Definitions, Trends, and Emerging Paths

Since the 1980s, scholars disputing the hegemony of positivist methodologies in the social sciences began to promote interpretive approaches, creating discussions about methodological pluralism and enabling a slow, and often resisted, proliferation of theoretical diversity. Within this context, “interpretivism” acquired a specific definition, which encompassed meaning-centered research and problematized positivist ideas of truth correspondence, objectivity, generalization, and linear processes of research. By critiquing the methodological assumptions that were often used to make positivism appear as a superior form of social science, interpretive scholars were confronted with questions about their own knowledge production and its validity. If meanings could be separated from objects, phenomena and identities could be constructed, and observers could not step out of their situated participation within these constructions, how could scholars validate their knowledge? Despite important agreements about the centrality, characteristics, and intelligibility of meaning, interpretivists still disagree about the different ways in which this question can be answered. Scholars often use diverse strategies of validation and they objectivize their interpretations in different degrees. On one side of the spectrum, some post-structuralist, feminist, and postcolonial scholars renounce methodological foundations of objectification and validation as much as possible. This opens the possibility of empirically researching epistemic assumptions, which scholars interpret either as components of dominant discourses or as alternatives that create possibilities of thinking about more multiplicity, difference, and diversity. On the other side, a number of constructivist, feminist, and critical scholars attach meanings to social structures and view their interpretations as reflecting parts of intersubjectivities, lifeworlds, cultures, etc. Since they use their own strategy to objectify interpretations and they solve the methodological question of validity, the scholars on this side of the spectrum either tend to pursue empirical research that does not analyze epistemic dimensions or they generalize particular experiences of domination. This disagreement influences not only the kind of empirical research that scholars pursue, but also creates some differences in the definitions of key interpretive notions such as power relations, reflexivity, and the role of empirical evidence. Within these agreements and disagreements, interpretivism created an overarching methodological space that allowed for the proliferation of theoretical approaches. Since the 1980s, post-structuralist, feminist, constructivist, neo-Marxist, postcolonial, green, critical, and queer theories have sought to expand the study of meanings, uncover aspects of domination, listen to previously marginalized voices, unveil hidden variations, and highlight alternatives. Some of the branches of these theories tend toward the different sides of the methodological spectrum and they disagree about the epistemic strategies that they can use to validate their knowledge production, but the opening of this interpretive space has allowed for scholars to deconstruct, reconstruct, and juxtapose meanings, contributing to the field from different perspectives and within particular empirical areas of research. Moreover, this diversifying process continues to unfold. Approaches such as the decolonial perspective that emerged in Latin American Studies continue to enter International Studies, creating new transdisciplinary debates and promoting other possibilities for thinking about international and global politics.

• Related Documents

Fluid Multilingual Practices among Youth in Cameroon and Mozambique

Inspired by recent epistemological and ontological debates aimed at unsettling and reshaping conceptions of language, this essay discusses how mainstream sociolinguistics offers notions meaningful for studying contexts of the South. Based on empirical studies of youth in two African cities, Yaoundé in Cameroon and Maputo in Mozambique, the essay engages with “fluid modernity” and “enregisterment” to unravel the role that fluid multilingual practices play in the social lives of urban youth. The empirically grounded theoretical discussion shows how recent epistemologies and ontologies offer inroads to more pluriversal knowledge production. The essay foregrounds: i) the role of language in the sociopolitical battles of control over resources, and ii) speakers’ reflexivity and metapragmatic awareness of register formations of fluid multilingual practices. Moreover, it shows how bundles of localized meanings construct belongings and counterhegemonic discourses, as well as demonstrating speakers’ differential valuations and perceptions of boundaries and transgressions across social space.

From the Individual's Fault to the Construct of Power (Development and Changes of Crime Theories)

The present paper aims to explain crime by investigating various theoretical approaches and to show that from the classic era to the recent postmodern theories, a slow but steady cycle of discourse concerning crime has been occurring. In the classic times, the criminal is assumed to be a sane person with sound will who commits crime with an individualistic choice and due to incorrect decisions; In the positivism approach, the theorists' concern is directed at recognizing criminals and clarifying more fundamental biological aspects and psychological performance and they seek to explain the phenomenon of crime by dividing the people of the society into normal and abnormal people; In the modern theories the social factors causing the appearance of crime are at the focal point while critical theories greatly emphasize on the role of the society in the criminal phenomenon and its definition, finally postmodern theories consider crime totally as constructed by mindset, language and power and question its existential reality.

Carmelo Mesa-Lago (ed.): The Crisis of Social Security and Health Care Latin American Experiences and Lessons (Latin American Monograph & Document Series, no. 9, Center for Latin American Studies, University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 1985, p.b. $9.50). Pp. ix + 365.

From crisis to the everyday: shouldn't we all be writing economies.

This commentary explores the politics of writing about the economy in a culture, society, and discipline that tends to prioritize masculinist (and white) theories and definitions of economy over embodied experiences of people living their everyday lives. Inspired by Timothy Mitchell's problematization of the economy as an object of analysis, we press further on the seemingly singular unit of “the” economy and who is allowed to define it as such. We are animated by questions of who is considered an expert on the economy and how, or by whom, crises in the economy are recognized. Drawing from our own writing experiences during the pandemic and from social movements we research, we argue for alternate ways of thinking about experiences of and expertise on the economy. In reckoning with how social movements speak to power in a bid to transform economies, we consider the role of economic geography in the economy of writing and knowledge production surrounding “the economy” itself. We make the case for a more public economic geography grounded in the social and economic embeddedness of knowledge production, the material consequences of who gets to define what is economically “important,” and the potential for this expertise to be located anywhere.

Underdevelopment, Obstacles to the Perception of Change, and Leadership

This chapter challenges the defeatism of Hirschman's friends and colleagues during the 1950s–1960s, when numerous political and social upheavals were happening worldwide. In this chapter, Hirschman explains that many of the so-called “structural causes”—a term advanced by his Latin American colleagues in the social sciences which refers to entrenched obstacles that make all efforts to change self-defeating—are ideological constructs. The chapter discusses two obstacles to the perception of change: the persistence of traits which are related to the “little traditions,” as well as the bias in the perception of cumulative change. It argues that the real, “stealthy” change that was actually occurring is being obscured in the process and the vital role of political and intellectual leadership is thus ignored.

Stretching Situated Knowledge

This chapter, first of three to develop relational cosmology in conversation with critical social theory and IR theory, argues that at the heart of relational cosmology lies a commitment to situated knowledge. This perspective on knowledge production is similar in some regards to standpoint epistemology but also diverges from it in key respects. The chapter argues that IR scholarship can benefit from close engagement with relational cosmology suggestions as to how our knowledge is limited and how we might need to ‘deal with it’, especially in the social sciences, where there is a tendency to glorify the role of the human in knowing the human.

The ethic-aesthetic way of wonders

Developments in the theoretical field of ecosophy have demonstrated the co-dependence of different human and natural factors, as well as connections between societal organization, natural sustainability and individual experience. Exploring these complex and organic relations between the social, the mental and the environmental, is an important task for contemporary research. A central question is where and how such research can be undertaken. This article traces central ecosophical lines of thinking, links them to ethic and aesthetic theory, and shows how these theories stand in a direct relation to three contemporary, on-going art projects. Ecosophy is proposed as a relational and practice-near research ideology, depending on the complexity-oriented principles of relationality, ethicality and immediacy. Finally, aesthetic research and research through art emerge as field-merging and practical-theoretical approaches, which should be given more attention and resources in current science and education politics. As an alternative field of knowledge production, referring to Jacques Ranciéres ‘distribution of the sensuous’ as well as phenomenological epistemology, ethic-aesthetic research not only constitutes new ways of sensing, but acknowledges larger parts of what we already know.

Academic Entrepreneurs, Public Policy, and the Growth of Latin American Studies in Britain during the Cold War

The initial development of Latin American studies in Britain in the early 1960s resulted from the interest of pioneering academics in London and Cambridge and the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Alongside these academic efforts, the government’s concerns about the declining role of British business in the region triggered the establishment of the Parry Committee in 1962. Reporting in 1965, this committee recommended the establishment of five government-financed Latin American centers, together with investment in training new Ph.D. students, especially in the social sciences. These younger scholars, who took the opportunity to do research and travel in Latin America, soon began to react more strongly against U.S. policy, economic inequality, and human rights abuses. In the 1970s, tensions between the older and newer generations became acute with the Pinochet coup and the “dirty wars.” Many academics thus distanced themselves from business and government in a way that the pioneers had not anticipated. El desarrollo inicial de los estudios latinoamericanos en Gran Bretaña a principios de la década de 1960 se debió al interés de académicos pioneros en Londres, Cambridge y el Instituto Real de Asuntos Internacionales. Junto con estas iniciativas académicas, la preocupación gubernamental ante el declive de los negocios británicos en la región dio lugar a la fundación del Comité Parry en 1962. En su informe de 1965, dicho comité recomendó el establecimiento de cinco centros latinoamericanos financiados por el gobierno, así como la formación de nuevos estudiantes doctorales, sobre todo en el área de ciencias sociales. Estos académicos más jóvenes, que aprovecharon la oportunidad de estudiar en y viajar por América Latina, pronto comenzaron a reaccionar con mayor fuerza contra la política de EE.UU., la desigualdad económica y los abusos contra los derechos humanos. En la década de 1970, las tensiones entre las generaciones más viejas y las nuevas se agudizaron con el golpe de estado de Pinochet y las “guerras sucias.” Muchos académicos se distanciaron entonces de los negocios y los asuntos del gobierno de una manera que los pioneros no habían previsto.

Supporting Exiles: The Role of Academics for Chile

Abstract This article examines the response to the 1973 coup in Chile. The response was remarkable both in its intensity and duration and in the number of countries which condemned the coup and made efforts to give assistance to those forced into exile. In Britain, the academic community quickly organized to make a sustained effort to give support to those members of Chilean universities who were the victims of the coup. This led to the formation of Academics for Chile, which, thanks to World University Service, led to grants being made to some 900 academics and students from Chile. The development of Latin American studies in several universities in the UK meant that the academic community was well-informed about developments in that country and had close contacts with Chilean academics. Support was widespread amongst universities in the UK and, came not just from the left, but from those who wished to defend academic freedom and democracy.

Survey of the Literature on Brazil of Sociological Significance Published up to 1940. Compiled by Donald Pierson for The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies of The National Research Council, The American Council of Learned Societies, and The Social Science Research Council. Miscellaneous Publications Number 4. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945. Pp. xvi, 60. $1.50.)

Export citation format, share document.

Positivism & Interpretivism

Positivism and interpretivism.

Sociologists fall broadly into two groups depending on what they think the best way to study society is; positivist or interpretivist. These viewpoints will then impact on their choice of research method

• Positivism refers to the belief that there are ‘social facts’ that can be studied objectively using methods that are similar to the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry and biology).
• Positivist methods produce quantitative data on social patterns and trends which can be used to explain society.

Research methods

• Laboratory experiments.
• The comparative method.
• Social surveys.
• Structured questionnaires.

Research methods cont.

• Formal/structured interviews.
• Non-participant observation.
• Official statistics.
• Content analysis.

Interpretivism

• Interpretivism implies that people are conscious of their personal beliefs, meanings, values, and interpretations, and that these influence the way they act.

Interpretivist research

• From an interpretivist perspective, the researcher attempts to gain an in-depth understanding of how people see and understand the world around them by putting themselves in the position of those being studied; to understand things from their point of view.

• Uncontrolled field experiments.
• Open-ended questionnaires.
• Unstructured interviews.
• Overt and covert participant and non-participant observation.
• Personal accounts, using personal documents such as diaries and letters.

1 Theory & Methods

1.1 Sociological Theories

1.1.1 Marxism

1.1.2 Feminism

1.1.3 Social Action Theories

1.2 Sociological Methods

1.2.1 Types of Data

1.2.2 Positivism & Interpretivism

1.2.3 Research Design

1.2.4 Research Considerations

1.2.5 Values in Research

1.2.6 Modernity & Post-Modernity

1.2.7 Sociology as a Science

1.2.8 Sociology & Social Policy

1.2.9 End of Topic Test - Sociology Methods & Theories

1.3 Sources of Data

1.3.1 Introduction

1.3.2 Experiments

1.3.3 Surveys

1.3.4 Longitudinal Studies

1.3.5 Questionnaires

1.3.6 Types of Questionnaires

1.3.7 Interviews

1.3.8 Observation

1.3.9 Case Studies

1.3.10 Documents

1.3.11 Official Statistics

1.3.12 End of Topic Test - Sources of Data

2 Education with Methods in Context

2.1 Role & Function of the Education System

2.1.1 Introduction

2.1.2 Functionalist Theories

2.1.3 Marxist & Feminist Theories

2.1.4 The New Right

2.2 Educational Achievement

2.2.1 Social Class: Internal Factors

2.2.2 Social Class: External Factors

2.2.3 Social Class: Attitudes to Education

2.2.4 Social Class: Difference in Achievement

2.2.5 Gender

2.2.6 Ethnicity

2.3 Relationships & Processes Within Schools

2.3.1 Processes

2.3.2 Labelling

2.3.3 Categorisations

2.3.4 Student Experience

2.3.5 End of Topic Test -Education with Methods

2.4 Educational Policies

2.4.1 Equality

2.4.2 Privatisation

2.4.3 Marketisation

2.4.4 Government Policies by Party

2.4.5 Globalisation

2.4.6 End of Topic Test- Educational Policies

2.4.7 Practice Exam Question - Social Policies

3 Option 1: Culture & Identity

3.1 Conceptions of Culture

3.1.1 Culture

3.1.2 Mass Culture

3.1.3 Popular Culture

3.1.4 Global Culture

3.1.5 End of Topic Test - Culture and Identity

3.2 Identity & Socialisation

3.2.1 Identities

3.2.2 Socialisation

3.2.3 Secondary Socialisation

3.2.4 Theories of Socialisation

3.2.5 End of Topic Test - Identity

3.2.6 Practice Exam Question - Socialisation & Equality

3.3 Social Identity

3.3.1 Social Class

3.3.2 Upper & Middle Class

3.3.3 Working & Underclass

3.3.4 Social Class Evaluation

3.3.5 Gender

3.3.6 Changing Gender Identities

3.3.7 Ethnicity

3.3.9 Disability

3.3.10 Nationality

3.3.11 End of Topic Test - Social Identity

3.4 Production, Consumption & Globalisation

3.4.1 Production & Consumption

3.4.2 Globalisation

3.4.3 Evaluation

3.4.4 End of Topic Test - Production

4 Option 1: Families & Households

4.1 Families & Households

4.1.1 Definitions

4.1.2 Functionalist & New Right Perspectives

4.1.3 Marxist & Feminist Perspectives

4.1.4 Postmodernist Perspective

4.1.5 End of Topic Test - Families & Households

4.1.6 Practice Exam Question - Function of Family

4.2 Changing Patterns

4.2.1 Marriage

4.2.2 Divorce

4.2.3 LAT Relationships

4.2.4 Child-Bearing

4.2.5 Lone Parenthood

4.2.6 Diversity

4.2.7 The Sociology of Personal Life

4.2.8 Government Policies Post-WW2

4.2.9 End of Topic Test - Changing Patterns

4.3 The Symmetrical Family

4.3.1 The Symmetrical Family

4.3.2 Evaluation

4.4 Children & Childhood

4.4.1 Childhood

4.4.2 Childhood in the UK

4.4.3 Childhood as a Social Construct

4.4.4 The Disappearance of Childhood

4.4.5 Child Abuse

4.4.6 Domestic Violence

4.4.7 End of Topic Test - Family & Childhood

4.5 Demographic Trends UK

4.5.1 Introduction

4.5.2 Birth Rates

4.5.3 Death Rates

4.5.4 The Ageing Population

4.5.5 Studies on the Ageing Population

4.5.6 Migration

4.5.7 Globalisation

4.5.8 End of Topic Test - Demographics UK

5 Option 1: Health

5.1 Social Constructions

5.1.1 The Body

5.1.2 Health, Illness & Disease

5.1.3 Disability

5.1.4 Models of Health & Illness

5.1.5 End of Topic Test - Social Constructions

5.2 Social Distribution of Healthcare

5.2.1 Social Class

5.2.2 Gender

5.2.3 Ethnicity

5.2.4 Regional

5.3 Provision & Access to Healthcare

5.3.1 The NHS

5.3.2 Inequalities in Provision

5.3.3 Sociological Explanations

5.3.4 Inequalities in Access

5.3.5 Inequalities in Access 2

5.3.6 End of Topic Test - Distribution Health

5.4 Mental Health

5.4.1 The Biomedical Approach

5.4.2 Social Patterns

5.4.3 Social Constructionist Approach

5.5 The Globalised Health Industry

5.5.1 The Functionalist Approach

5.5.2 The Postmodernist Approach

5.5.3 The Globalised Health Industry

5.5.4 End of Topic Test - Mental Health & Globalisation

6 Option 1: Work, Poverty & Welfare

6.1 Poverty & Wealth

6.1.1 Types of Poverty

6.1.2 Types of Poverty 2

6.1.3 Distribution of Wealth UK

6.1.4 Sociological Theories

6.1.5 Sociological Theories 2

6.1.6 Distribution of Poverty UK

6.1.7 End of Topic Test - Poverty & Wealth

6.2 Welfare

6.2.1 The Welfare State

6.2.2 Theoretical Approaches to Welfare

6.3 Labour Process

6.3.1 Nature of Work

6.3.2 Technology & Control

6.3.3 Work & Life

6.3.4 The Effects of Globalisation

6.3.5 Globalisation & Worklessness

6.3.6 End of Topic Test - Welfare & Labour

7 Option 2: Beliefs in Society

7.1 Ideology, Science & Religion

7.1.1 Types of Religion

7.1.2 Ideology & Belief Systems

7.1.3 Social Stability & Religion

7.1.4 Social Change & Religion

7.1.5 End of Topic Test - Ideology, Science & Religion

7.2 Religious Movements

7.2.1 Religious Organisations

7.2.2 New Religious Movements

7.2.3 New Age Movements

7.2.4 Practice Exam Question - Growth of NRMs

7.3 Society & Religion

7.3.1 Social Groups & Religion

7.3.2 Gender & Religion

7.3.3 End of Topic Test- Religious Movements & Society

7.4 Contemporary Religion

7.4.1 Secularisation UK

7.4.2 Against Secularisation

7.4.3 Secularisation US

7.4.4 Fundamentalism

7.4.5 Economic Development & Religion

7.4.6 End of Topic - Contemporary Religion

8 Option 2: Global Development

8.1 Development, Underdevelopment & Global Inequality

8.1.1 Development

8.1.2 Underdevelopment & Global Inequality

8.2 Globalisation & Global Organisations

8.2.1 Globalisation

8.2.2 Transnational Corporations & International Agency

8.2.3 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)

8.3 Aid, Trade, Industrialisation, Urbanisation

8.3.1 Development: Aid & Trade

8.3.2 Development: Industrialisation & Urbanisation

8.3.3 Development: Environment & War

9 Option 2: The Media

9.1 Contemporary Media

9.1.1 New Media

9.1.2 Control of the Media

9.1.3 Sociological Approaches: New Media

9.1.4 Globalisation

9.1.5 News Selection

9.1.6 Moral Panics

9.1.7 End of Topic Test - Contemporary Media

9.2 Media Representations

9.2.2 Social Class & Ethnicity

9.2.3 Gender

9.2.4 Sexuality & Disability

9.2.5 Practice Exam Questions - Presentation of Women

9.3 Audiences

9.3.1 Media Theories

9.3.2 Media Theories 2

9.3.3 Media Representations & Audiences

10 Crime & Deviance

10.1 Crime & Society

10.1.1 Functionalism

10.1.2 Subcultural Theory

10.1.3 Marxism

10.1.4 Realism

10.1.5 Other Approaches

10.1.6 End of Topic Test - Crime & Society

10.1.7 Practice Exam Questions - Social Construction

10.2 Social Distribution of Crime

10.2.1 Ethnicity

10.2.2 Gender

10.2.3 Globalisation & Crime

10.2.4 Media & Crime

10.2.5 Types of Crimes

10.2.6 End of Topic Test - Social Distribution of Crime

10.3 Prevention & Punishment

10.3.1 Surveillance

10.3.2 Prevention

10.3.3 Punishment

10.3.4 Victimology

10.3.5 End of Topic Test - Prevention & Punishment

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Types of Data

Research Design

Navigating the Path Between Positivism and Interpretivism for the Technology Academic Completing Education Research

• First Online: 30 August 2016

Cite this chapter

• Michael A. Cowling 12  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods ((PSERM))

5428 Accesses

Technology researchers, who typically come from a background steeped in experimentation and dogma, may contribute to qualitative research in learning and teaching. This chapter challenges the perceived positivist epistemology of technology academics, its communication with research in technology, focusing in particular on how epistemology in this discipline is usually downplayed in favour of discussion of methods at the expense of epistemology and methodology. Using work such as that by Hofer and Bendixen (Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 227–256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2012) on “personal epistemology”, the position of different epistemologies and their relationships to research questions will be discussed, with strategies identified to allow researchers coming from technology research to navigate an epistemological shift for learning and teaching research and discussion on why this might be required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions and Strategies for Curriculum Practice in Technology Education

Theories and Models Employed to Understand the Use of Technology in Education: A Hermeneutic Literature Review

A Methodological Approach to Researching the Development of Teachers’ Knowledge in a Multi-Representational Technological Setting

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46 (3), 141–167.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002 (93), 63–72.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research . Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Cowling, M., & Sitte, R. (2003). Comparison of techniques for environmental sound recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters, 24 (15), 2895–2907.

Cowling, M. A. (2012). Student attendance as a measure of academic success. Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on Education , Hawaii, USA, 5–8 January.

Cowling, M. A. (2014). Models for the successful integration of social networking into the studies of digital native students. Proceedings of ISANA International Education Association 25th Annual Conference , Adelaide, SA, 2–5 December.

Cowling, M. A., & Novak, J., (2012). Tweet the teacher: Using Twitter as a mechanism to increase classroom engagement. Proceedings of ISANA International Education Association 23rd Annual Conference , Auckland, NZ, 4–7 December.

Hofer, B. K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1 , Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 227–256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of constructivism: Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (4), 455–465.

Moore, D. (2004). The basic practice of statistics (3rd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Muijs, D. (2010). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18 (1), 3–54.

Myers, M. D. (2015). Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 241–242. MISQ Discovery , archival version, June 1997, http://www.misq.org/supplements/ . Association for Information Systems ( AISWorld ) Section on Qualitative Research in Information Systems , updated version, last modified: April 13, 2015, www.qual.auckland.ac.nz

O’donoghue, T. (2006). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist research in education . London: Routledge.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63 (2), 167–199.

Sinatra, G. M., & Chinn, C. A. (2012). Thinking and reasoning in science: Promoting epistemic conceptual change. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. G. Bus, S. Major, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3: Application to learning and teaching ., (pp. 257–282). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, viii, 668 pp. (pp. 257–282). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://doi:10.1037/13275-011 [pp. viii, 668].

Weiers, R. (2008). Introduction to business statistics (6th ed.). Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education and the Arts, CQUniversity Australia, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Michael A. Cowling

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education and the Arts, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia

Bobby Harreveld

School of Education and the Arts, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia

Mike Danaher

North Rockhampton Campus, Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia

Celeste Lawson

Central Queensland University , Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Bruce Allen Knight

Central Queensland University, Rockhampton North, Queensland, Australia

Gillian Busch

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cowling, M.A. (2016). Navigating the Path Between Positivism and Interpretivism for the Technology Academic Completing Education Research. In: Harreveld, B., Danaher, M., Lawson, C., Knight, B., Busch, G. (eds) Constructing Methodology for Qualitative Research. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59943-8_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59943-8_4

Published : 30 August 2016

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-59942-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-59943-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory

• Nurse Researcher 25(4):14-20
• 25(4):14-20

• The Open University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Susan M. Carr
• Lydia Lochhead

• Mohamed Elbayomy
• Sherif Hasan
• Tahmina Hoq
• Md. Refayet Hossain

• MATSHEPO KOAPE
• Anastacia Mamabolo
• Allan C Muzenda
• Ottilia Faith Chimpeni

• Adele Neethling
• Madeleen Rheeder-Jooste
• Won-Li Richardson
• Lizeth Roets
• Siyabulela Gegana
• Mampilo M. Phahlane
• AM J EPIDEMIOL
• Anthony J Alberg

• Sydnee Crankshaw
• Joellen M Schildkraut
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

PARADIGMS: Positivists, Interpretivists, and Critical Inquiry

Related Papers

Thomas Catlaw

abida sheikh

This article traces the underlying theoretical framework of educational research. It outlines the definitions of epistemology, ontology and paradigm and the origins, main tenets, and key thinkers of the 3 paradigms; positivist, interpetivist and critical. By closely analyzing each paradigm, the literature review focuses on the ontological and epistemological assumptions of each paradigm. Finally the author analyzes not only the paradigm's weakness but also the author's own construct of reality and knowledge which align with the critical paradigm. The English Language Teaching (ELT) field has moved from an ad hoc field with amateurish research to a much more serious enterprise of professionalism. More teachers are conducting research to not only inform their teaching in the classroom but also to bridge the gap between the external researcher dictating policy and the teacher negotiating that policy with the practical demands of their classroom. I was a layperson, not an educational researcher. Determined to emancipate myself from my layperson identity, I began to analyze the different philosophical underpinnings of each paradigm, reading about the great thinkers' theories and the evolution of social science research. Through this process I began to examine how I view the world, thus realizing my own construction of knowledge and social reality, which is actually quite loose and chaotic. Most importantly, I realized that I identify most with the critical paradigm assumptions and that my future desired role as an educational researcher is to affect change and challenge dominant social and political discourses in ELT. The following literature review is the product of my transformation from teacher to educational researcher. I will begin by defining the operational definitions of ontology, epistemology and paradigm. Then, I trace the origins, main tenets, and key thinkers of the 3 paradigms; positivist, interpetivist and critical, focusing on the ontological and epistemological assumptions of each paradigm. Through this analysis of different paradigms, I will expose not only each paradigm's weakness but also my own construct of reality and knowledge.

Diwakar Singh

Being a research scholar myself, I have faced great confusion understanding the philosophical underpinning of research. The available abundant resource only multiplied my owes. It is mainly due to the fact that finding one general definition of a term is very difficult. A term is defined differently in different disciplines and also differently in different context in the same discipline. This makes the life of early researchers even more difficult. The lack of knowledge and confusion about epistemology, ontology, methodology, and methods keeps the budding researchers always finding one source or the other to understand these concepts clearly. Generally, research scholars are quite ignorant about the importance these terms have in the research process and how the lack of proper understanding is going to affect the kind of research they are undertaking. Having struggled to understand the journey of research, made me explore a number of resources. The problem in understanding the complexity was not the lack of resources but on the contrary their availability in abundance. Also, the knowledge is available in a fragmented form and more than solving the doubts they create even more confusion. A great deal of effort is made to synthesize the fragmented knowledge at one place and present the paper in easy to understand even to a novice researcher. An attempt is made to make research scholars understand the philosophical underpinnings of research with respect to various paradigms in a very lucid manner. This is going to make their philosophical journey quite smooth. They can have a better understanding of these processes from the beginning of their research process. However, due to ever-increasing paradigms, some of the most important ones are only discussed. The journey of a research scholar is most challenging and also most rewarding. Sound Understanding of philosophical underpinnings of research paves the path for smooth and successful completion of quality research and gives joy achieved once in a lifetime. Keywords: Research Paradigm, Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Methods

Research Philosophy and Paradigm

Kevin D O'Gorman

For no apparent reason, research philosophy tends to send dissertation students into a mild panic. The befuddlement caused by a range of new terminology relating to the philosophy of knowledge is unnecessary when all that you are trying to achieve is some clarity over the status of any knowledge claims you make in your study. Accounting and Finance sits within the broader context of the social sciences, and this chapter offers a guide to the standard philosophical positions required to specify the particular form of research you plan to undertake. Collectively, these positions will define what we refer to as a research paradigm (see Figure 4.1: Methods Map). For us, a comprehensive artic-ulation of a research design draws together five layers of interlocking choices that you, the researcher, should make when specifying how you plan to execute your research. There is no single 'right' way to undertake research, but there are distinct traditions, each of which tends to operate with its own, internally consistent, set of choices. The Methods Map offers a clear and structured approach that will ensure that you can identify each of the choices you make in selecting the research design for your project. The process of developing a research design begins with the location of your proposed work within a particular research paradigm. Certain methods of data gathering and analysis tend to follow from certain paradigms, although it is important to notice that these implied pathways are not fixed. What is truly important is your ability to recognise and justify the interlocking choices which represent your own research design. Later chapters will deconstruct and explain the subsequent stages of the Map, namely those choices relating to both data gathering and data analysis. The sections that follow in this chapter relate to the starting point of the Methods Map, labelled 'Research Paradigm. ' We shall first consider the reasons for articulating a research philosophy, before exploring objective and subjective ontologies, and the epistemological positions known as positivism, critical realism, action research and interpretivism. In passing, we will also look at rhetoric (the study of persuasive language) and axiology (the study of value) as a means of rounding out your understanding of some key phrases and concepts.

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin

Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

yavuz ercan Gul

All research is based on some basic assumptions about how good research is done and which research method is appropriate. It is important to be aware of these assumptions in conducting any research. The unjustified use of approaches with very different understandings of reality in the same study casts a shadow over the seriousness of the research. Because it guides scientific research through research paradigms, assumptions and principles. This study focuses on the research paradigm by examining the basic assumptions of Positivism, Naturalism and Pragmatism (ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology). The main purpose of the study is to show researchers that when choosing a method, they also adopt a philosophical tradition and that they must act in accordance with this tradition during the study process. As a result, researchers conducting scientific research need to know that they are also choosing a belief and worldview when determining a method. A researcher who determines a method suitable for the quantitative approach should know that he also accepts that reality is knowable and generalizable in accordance with the positivist tradition. On the other hand, a researcher who conducts a study in accordance with the qualitative approach must know that he/she complies with the naturalist interpretive tradition that emphasizes that reality is more than one or uncertain

Zorica Patel

Marwa Elshafie

Jeremy Woodhill

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Benjamin O Ajibade

Brian Vasquez

Sivadas Madhavan

Muhammad Athar H. Shah

JIMMA UNIVERSITY College Of Education and Behavioral Sciences Department of Educational Planning and Management

chala A legede

Asia-Pacific - Annual Research Journal of Far East & South East Asia

Ameer Ali Buriro

Understanding Medical Education

James Scotland

Journal of Positive Psychology & Wellbeing, 5, 4, 205-217

Santiago Sevilla-Vallejo , Johanna Santa Cruz , ABEL DIONICIO BALLENA DE LA CRUZ

ELT Research Journal

Dinçay KÖKSAL

Gbenga S Adejare

Tommy Pratomo

Mitaja Chakraborty , Gitanjali Joshua , lalatendu kesari das

National-Louis University Digital Commons

Darren Aitchison

saeed ahmed

Dawn Darlaston-Jones

olawale akinselure

Reading Research Quarterly

Ian Wilkinson , David Bloome

Online Submission

Brett Cumming

Grazer Philosopische Studien 76

Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij

Kumbirai Cliff Chinodya

European Scientific Journal ESJ

Economic and Political Weekly

lalatendu kesari das , Mitaja Chakraborty , priyam sharma , satheesh perumalla , Shilpa Krishna , Gitanjali Joshua , Chandra Shekar

Behavioral & Experimental Economics eJournal

Lucio Biggiero

Madhu Prabakaran

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Positivist and Interpretivist Methods, Field Experiments, Laboratory…

• relies specifically on scientific evidence to provide a true nature on how society operates
• society shapes an individual
• Aim is to uncover the laws that rule human behaviour
• They may use methods like: Surveys, questionnaires and official statistics are they are generally reliable and representative
• They prefer to look at trends and patterns than individuals on their own
• Individuals have a consciousness, and not puppets who react to external social forces
• Individuals are different and understand the 'objective reality' in different ways
• Allows them to gain deep insight into the lives of participants
• Gain empathy as to why they act in the way they do
• Interpretivists are interested in micro sociology, interested in the intricate complexities of human interactions, feelings and motives.
• They can provide deep, subjective and meaningful insights into social behaviour.
• Less Artificiality - They are set in real-world experiments Validity - 'Participants' are unaware of the experiment, so there will be no Hawthorne Effect (behaving differently when becoming aware that you're being observed) As a result, they'll behave normally
• Ethical Issues - Experimenting without any informed consent
• Take place in the real world
• The sociologist either creates a situation or adapts a reaL life situation to their research
• Those involved are usually unaware of the research taking place
• Experiments that take place in controlled environments and aim to use the scientific method to test a specific hypothesis
• Highly Reliable - They can be repeated exactly allowing previous findings to be checked Have high accuracy and precison
• Hawthorne Effect - If people know they are being studied, they may act differently, as they are not in a natural or formal setting Artificiality - Carried out in a highly artificial environment and may not reveal how people act in the real world, therefore the behaviour is likely to be artificial
• Rapport (bond) - Having informality allows the interviewer to develop a relationship Flexibility - Having unstructured questions allows for no restriction, not fixed Validity - Participants can be more truthful as it is flexible (more friendly environnment)
• Practical - Time Worthy: Typically unstructured interviews will be longer, as they consume more time Unrepresentative - Small research sample, so the data is not representative of wider society Ethical Issues - May be difficult for the interviewer to not ask senstive questions
• Asking open questions which can allow for more data
• A strong relationship is built between the interviewer and participant
• Becoming close can allow for better validity of the data
• The researcher joins in the activities of the group they are researching.
• Unreliable - There is a risk of providing bias data, as the researcher may begin to sympathise Un Representative - Tends to be done on small-scale groups, not representative on the wider .,society
• Valid - The participants are in a natural/authentic setting, it'll be a true account of the group's behaviour Insight - By acting as a member can get insight into their meanings, view points, values and problems - gives authentic data Practical advantages - Access to more suspicious groups as can gain rapport and trust - helpful when studying groups like gangs
• Some groups are unlikely to produce personal documents (letters/diaries) and so their views aren't represented
• These can take the form of diaries, memoirs, autobiographies and letters.
• Practical - They are cheap and can save the researcher's time Confirmation - Can be used to confirm questions or interpretations made Illustrates many areas of social life
• Practical - They are quick and cheap Representative - Reach a geographically widespread research sample Reliable - The questions are pre set, so they can easily be repeated Limited Ethical Issues - The participant is not obliged to complete it
• Response Rate - To post the questionnaires may result in a low response rate, hindering the representativity Low Validity - Participants can lie about their answers Un Representative - There will be one group more willing to answer it, than others The interviewer cannot ask follow-up questions or explain the questions if need be to the participants.
• They allow for comparisons over time (marriage, birth and death rates)
• Unrepresentative - Documents may have been lost or destroyed Validity - The document may not have been written by the person it's attributed to