OfferGet 10% off on Dissertation, Assignments, Essays, Thesis
Research philosophies are the outer layer of the Research onion, a popular metaphor for the various layers or steps in the research project, that resemble the layers of onion. The other layers of social research consist of research approaches, research strategies, research choices, time horizons and the data collection techniques and analysis (Saunders, et al., 2007). The research philosophy indicates the development of knowledge that relates to nature of knowledge. The research paradigm refers to the set of beliefs which will guide the action of the social researcher. The research paradigms are also referred to as pillars of research philosophy. The various philosophies of research are positivism, interpretivism, realism, objectivism, subjectivism, feminism, pragmatism, functionalist, interpretive, radical humanists and radical structuralists. Among the research philosophies listed above, the essay will focus on positivism and interpretivism, as the one of the main philosophies of social research.
The essay will begin with the description of the features of positivism and interpretivism. The second section will focus on the strengths of the positivism and interpretivism separately. The third part of the report focuses on the limitations of positivism and interpretivism separately. The conclusion towards the end summarises the discussion.
Positivism The positivist philosophy is derived from science, wherein the hypothesis is tested from existing theories. Therefore the research approach that is based on the philosophy of positivism is also called the deductive approach. By incorporating a positivism research philosophy researcher would analyse the research problem based on a scientific approach and present a definite solution that will have universal validity and cannot change under any circumstances. The philosophy assumes that social research knowledge is valid if observations are based on external reality and the general laws are generalizable and can easily predict the outcome. The philosophy is based on truth which focuses on facts that are gathered from direct observations and experience of the researchers and can be measured using qualitative methods like survey or interview or quantitative methods like statistical analysis. The philosophy tries to uncover the truth about the nature of social research problem and what researcher would be focusing upon. The philosophy helps in unearthing the relationship between what is known and what is to be studied and validated with some known probability and helps in making predictions. Science has to be able to uncover the truth so that one can control or predict easily (Blaikie, 2000). The main requirements under the positivism philosophy are:
From an ontological perspective, positivism philosophy is largely external and objective while it is independent of other factors. The broad philosophy of epistemology relates to the researcher’s view of what is acceptable knowledge. The positivism philosophy assumes that only the phenomena that is visible and can be observed will provide credible data. The focus will be on generalisations and causal relationships. According to the broader philosophy of axiology, the researcher will emphasise on importance of values in research. According to positivist approach if the research does not emphasise much on value, then the researcher isolates his responsibility from data. Positivist social science is meant to be value free. The data collection and analysis techniques, consists of highly structured methods and the analysis will be largely quantitative but some cases even qualitative data analysis is also undertaken (Connaway & Powell, 2010). The empiricist philosophers treat science as the highest form of knowledge. The logical positivist philosophers like R Carnap (1966) and AJ Ayer (1946) wanted to draw a line between knowledge and belief systems like values and religion. According to the empiricist the belief systems are also sciences and reared to pseudo-sciences. The empiricist view of sciences revolves around seven basic doctrines. The human mind is blank and people acquire knowledge through the experiences of the world and can interact with it. The knowledge can be tested by experience, observation and experiment. All beings and entities can be observed. The scientific laws talk about recurring patterns of experience. If a phenomena is to be explained, then the law behind the phenomena should be able to predict the occurrences of the phenomena in the future. The logic for prediction in the future and its explanation is the same.
The positivists in the seventeenth or the eighteenth century had a different version of learning and acquiring knowledge, but the empiricists today do not accept this view. The positivist philosophers of the twenty-first century differentiate between acquiring knowledge and the process of testing the hypothesis. According to positivist Karl Popper, there is a distinction between discovery and justification. Empiricists also adopt one or more alternative approaches to making moral judgements. In making judgement or taking decisions it is important to apply the principles of ethics like utilitarianism, which means that an action is favourable as long as it does maximum good to people. Empiricists thus support the superiority of science and acknowledge it as the supreme source of knowledge. Positivists use science to answer the problems presented in social science (Jarvie & Zamora-Bonilla, 2011).
Positivism also entails the use of social scientific knowledge in social policy making, thus increasing the scope of the usage of natural sciences studies into social sciences. The use of quantitative data on all spheres of social and political lives show the wide spread use of scientific and statistical data. Today policy makers in many parts of the world use official statistics for measuring all aspects of social and economic life like health, employment, and marriage or consumption pattern. The use of social scientists to analyse and interpret these statistical data is common and important for policy implications. Every socio economic and socio cultural problem has a scientific explanation. Positivists like August Comte and Durkheim present a natural approach to social science. Positivism, as an approach to solving social science problems has evolved over the years. However the analysis of the strengths and limitations of the positivist approach will determine how useful this approach is in social science (Benton & Craib, 2010).
The interpretivism philosophies try to understand the difference among social agents in their performance as social actors. This philosophy of social research, interpretivism, is considered to be anti-positivism, as it emphasises on the difference between the subject matter of social sciences and natural sciences (Cohen, et al., 2011). The philosophy of interpretivism was developed as a critic to the objectivism philosophy of research and minimise the rationalisation of the positivist approach. Since social studies phenomena cannot be measured or quantified or predicted. The intepretivists believe that thoughts, ideas, behaviour and perception of human beings cannot be quantified. The reality in any problem or any issue is interpreted through eyes of individual and is therefore meaningful.
According to the ontological assumptions, reality is meaningful and is determined by individuals who participate in it. There are different truths and realties and not just one, unlike the positivist approach. Based on the epistemological assumptions, knowledge is subjective as against the positivist view that it is objective. The thoughts, beliefs, perception and ideas of the human minds are related to a specific context. The aim of a social research based on the interpretivism philosophy is related to understanding the social phenomena rather than discovering universally applicable laws. The interpretivism researcher aims at understanding the real experiences of people. The interpretivism philosophy being largely subjective, follows the qualitative methods (Martin & McIntyre, 1994).
According to the interpretivism philosophy researchers can analyse the problem using a social perspective and the researcher solution will change as per circumstances. There could be differences in the perception of consumers and the external environmental conditions and this would also be factored in this research philosophy. The philosophy of interpretivism is socially constructed, and focuses on the researcher’s subjective meaning as against the objective nature of the positivist philosophy. Therefore there is scope for bias. There are multiple views or ways that would be adopted to solve the research problem. The principle of epistemology states the researcher’s views on what is acceptable knowledge and according to the philosophy of interpretivism, the subjective meaning of the underlying problem amounts to accumulated knowledge. The focus is on understanding the reality behind the activities carried out behind the social researcher. In an interpretivism approach, the research is value bound and the problem description and analysis is largely subjective. The researcher is a part of what is being researched upon, and both cannot be separated. The data collection techniques consist of small samples which involve carrying out in-depth investigations and are largely qualitative (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).
The features of interpretivism approach highlight the subtle differences of this philosophy from that of positivist philosophy. According to the social researchers who base their research on the philosophy of interpretivism, consider multiple realities. The research is also subjected to multiple interpretations. Since the interpretivism philosophers try to understand the existing theories and validate them using the research hypothesis the approach is said to be inductive. The philosophers understand what the people think or feel and what they want to communicate, both verbally and non-verbally. Since the philosophy follows an inductive approach to data analysis, it follows the qualitative strategy for data collection and interpretation. Interpretive philosophy works best when self-reflection is adopted (James & Vinnicombe, 2002). Another point of difference between positivist and interpretive approach lies in the way the results are analysed. Regardless of the approach used in analysing te research problem, interpretivists assume that the results are subjective and a uniformity cannot be established. Unlike the positivist philosophy, interpretivist philosophy demands more interaction with the participants and the data or topics to be researched. The role of the researcher depends on the subjective views of the researcher.
To briefly summarise the main characteristic features of an interpretive approach, it can be said that interpretive philosophy is subjective, and could be biased. The interpretivists have to undertake a detailed research and do not take a general overview, like a positivist approach.
Positivism: The strength of the positivist approach to social sciences is that the theory associated with a particular problem can be largely generalised. A finding can be generalised even if it has been replicated among different sets of sampled population and sub populations. The positivist approach is quantitative in nature and allows future predictions to be made with accuracy. The use of quantitative data can allow the quantitative predictions to be made. The precision with which the predictions are made by studying the large number of people allows for save in time. The objective information available through the quantitative data can be used to make scientific assumption. Positivist approach facilitates reliability and validity of data and this can be improved through the use of appropriate statistical statements and sampling methods (LeGouis, 1997).
Interpretivism - the main strength of the philosophy of interpretivism is that it offers different viewpoints that could be constructive and beneficial to the society. The different facets of reality are presented in this approach. The interpretivists focus on identifying the understanding of the participants and their interpretations. The participants get to participate in a non-artificial setting. The usage of interpretivism in business studies is widespread as suggested by Klein and Myers (1999). The underlying principles beneath the interpretivism philosophy consist of principle of hermeneutic circle, contextualisation, abstraction, generalisation, reasoning, suspicion and multiple interpretation. The adoption of the interpretivism philosophy, allows the qualitative research to be carried out in areas like understanding the cross cultural differences in an organisation, ethics and leadership issues and analysis of factors that could affect leadership. The data is rich, however the setting under which the data has been carried out determines the validity and reliability of the data. Since the primary data in the interpretivism studies is gathered from interviews and observations, tends to have a high level of validity and the data used in the studies tends to be trustworthy (Heshusius & Ballard, 1996).
Weaknesses/Limitations:
Positivism: The positivist approach has certain weaknesses as well. Empiricism and objectivity has certain weaknesses. Their applicability in testing human behaviour is limited. The claims of positivism that rests on the tenets of objectivity and empiricism may not work when used in natural and social sciences. In a positivist approach one cannot detach from the hypothesis totally. The positivist approach is very general and not able to take into account the unique ability of interpreting experiences and representing to others. The general understanding from the positivist approach would not be useful in a particular context. The knowledge produced from the positivist approach is very abstract and cannot be used for local situation. The inaccurate scientific data is likely to be the outcome of the hypothesis. The methods, that adopt the positivist philosophy, may require the participants to choose the random answers which will not give authentic responses. Overall the research methodology that follows a positivist approach offers no flexibility. Some research scholars believe that by adopting positivist approach, everything can be measured and calculated and thus be inflexible (Heshusius & Ballard, 1996).
Interpretivism -some of the main limitations of the philosophy of interpretivism is that the research process involves time, money and costs. If the observation is cohort then there could be possibility of deception thus resulting in ethical issues. The overt observation would result in changes in the behaviour of the researcher. The observations may be difficult to replicate and also could be unreliable. The research observations, results and analysis may be difficult to generalise. Since the primary data collected through the usage of this philosophy is affected by personal opinion and values of the researcher, the generalisation of data cannot be possible. The reliability of the data is undermined as the representation of data is less. Although the interpretivism studies have a high level of validity, they can be less reliable. Since the primary data is empathetic, the data may not be very accurate and so would be the results (Mackay, et al., 2013).
Despite the limitations of positivism, researchers still support positivism as a research philosophy because of its main feature like generalisations, predictions, validity and reliability, help researchers in carrying out research which is largely general and can be applied universally. Unlike the interpretivists approach, the positivist philosophy is objective and transparent. The precisions offered by positivist philosophy, helps in saving time and effort. Similarly, despite limitations of interpretivism, the philosophy allows the researcher to recognise the meanings that will influence the research. By establishing a criteria to test validity and reliability of data, interpretivists establish a framework of meaning of the research. The discussion above outlined the differences between positivism and interpretivism. However the main differences between the philosophies are the use of research methods to carry out the study. The positivists’ researchers use experiments, surveys and field observations, while the interpretivists tend to use cases studies, journals and ethno-graphic studies. To conclude one can say that the main factors that affect te choice of the research philosophy consist of the training provided to researchers, pressures associated with research and the preferences to carry out the research.
Bibliography
Benton, T. & Craib, I., (2010) Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought. s.l.:Palgrave Macmillan.
Blaikie, N., (2000) Designing Social Research. s.l.:Cambridge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K., (2011) Research methods in education. s.l.:Routledge.
Connaway, L. & Powell, R., (2010) Basic Research Methods for Librarians. s.l.:s.n.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A., (2008) Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Heshusius, L. & Ballard, K., (1996) From Positivism to Interpretivism and Beyond: Tales of Transformation in Educational and Social Research. s.l.:Teachers College Press.
Heshusius, L. & Ballard, K., (1996) From Positivism to Interpretivism and Beyond: Tales of Transformation in Educational and Social Research. s.l.:Teachers College Press.
James, K. & Vinnicombe, S., (2002) Acknowledging the Individual in the Researcher. London: SAGE Publications.
Jarvie, I. C. & Zamora-Bonilla, J., (2011) The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences. s.l.:SAGE.
LeGouis, C., (1997) Positivism and Imagination: Scientism and Its Limits in Emile Hennequin, Wilhelm Scherer, and Dmitrii Pisarev. s.l.:Bucknell University.
Mackay, H., Maples, W. & Reynolds, P., (2013) Investigating Information Society. s.l.:Routledge.
Martin, M. & McIntyre, L. C., (1994) Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. s.l.:MIT Press.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., (2007) Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Uniresearchers is a leading team of researchers in the field of academic writing. With the track record of delivering 500+ high quality dissertations and 2500+ essays, assignments and coursework’s Uniresearchers has always tried to keep up with the expectations of our clients.
Uniresearchers is a leading team of researchers in the field of academic writing. With the track record of delivering 500+ high quality dissertations and 2500+ essays, assignments and coursework’s Uniresearchers has always tried to keep up with the expectations of our clients.
