ERIC ED619359: The Discussions of Positivism and Interpretivism

2022·0.65 MB·English

by  ERIC

Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

Available online at https://www.gajrc.com
DOI: 10.36348/gajhss.2022.v04i01.002

ISSN:2706-901X (P)
ISSN:2707-2576 (O)

Review Article

The Discussions of Positivism and Interpretivism

Ma Junjie1*, Ma Yingxin2
1The Moray House School of Education, the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
2The Moray House School of Sport, the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

*Corresponding Author Abstract: This paper aims to explore the philosophical theoretical foundations
Ma Junjie of two basic research paradigms, namely positivism and interpretivism. In the
The Moray House School of discussion process, literature in the relevant fields including academic papers
Education, the University of and books is reviewed and used as support for the analysis. Firstly, the paper
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
explores the differences between the positivist and interpretivist paradigms in

terms of ontology and epistemology. The paper then goes on to critically
Article History
analyze the shortcomings of interpretivism, including nihilism, susceptibility to
Received: 11.12.2021
bias, and neglect of ideological influences. Finally, this paper adopts the
Accepted: 17.01.2022
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability theories to support
Published: 19.01.2022
the interpretivist perspective on research methods, i.e., qualitative research

methods, from the educational field. This research will help researchers to

better understand the differences between positivist and interpretivist
paradigms and to choose the applicable research methods according to the
research field.
Keywords: Paradigm, Positivism, Interpretivism, Reliability.
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s): This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial use
provided the original author and source are credited.

INTRODUCTION scientifically by means of rational tools. This guides
According to Kuhn (2015), a paradigm is the researcher to draw universal laws and
essentially a theoretical framework. It provides the conclusions based on repeated statistical results and
sum of a set of hypotheses, ontology, epistemology, generalizations. By contrast, interpretivism has its
and methods for scientific research and is generally roots in symbolic interactionism as well as
accepted by researchers (Scotland, 2012). The phenomenology, which believes that value- and
paradigm conforms to the understanding of people’s theory-neutral facts do not exist, and that the way
knowledge and reality and lays the foundation for all people regard objects determines the nature of
philosophically based scientific research (Kuhn, objects (Weber & Henderson, 2012). Chen (1996)
2015). And positivism and interpretivism are the summarizes that this paradigm motivates
two common paradigms used in philosophy for researchers to seek experience and to consider
scientific research and analysis. According to Howell different interpretations of particular social contexts
(2013), positivism originates from empiricist in order to gain further depth.
philosophy, which believes the truth of theories
must be verified empirically. Ryan (2018) further Positivism and interpretivism have
claims that positivism adheres to the concept of significant differences in ontology and epistemology,
natural science, that there must be logical relations and they are highly controversial in the social
within and between objects, and that the research of sciences field. Based on these, this paper will
objects is to find these relations and to justify them compare these two paradigms in terms of ontology
Citation: Ma Junjie & Ma Yingxin (2022). The Discussions of Positivism and Interpretivism. Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-4,
Iss-1 pp- 10-14.
10
Ma Junjie & Ma Yingxin, Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-4, Iss-1 (Jan-Feb, 2022): 10-14.
and epistemology, and then continue to analyze the to an objectivist viewpoint and maintain emotional
place of interpretivism in the research field. Finally, neutrality by creating distance between themselves
the paper will adopt Lincoln and Guba’s (2006) and the research participants in order not to be
theories of credibility, transferability, dependability, influenced by the preconceptions of the researcher.
and confirmability to support the interpretivist In this way, Howell (2013) asserts that the
perspective on research methods, i.e., qualitative researcher can distinguish between reason and
research methods, from the educational field. feeling and between science and personal
experience, having achieved an accurate perception
Comparing positivism and interpretivism in of natural phenomena. On the other hand, a major
terms of ontology and epistemology difference between interpretivism and positivism is
According to Heidegger (2013), ontology that while positivism tries to derive universal rules
can be defined as the essence of reality. Thus, to be generalizable across all populations without
ontology is concerned with determining the nature considering contextual variables, interpretivists
of the existence of a specific phenomenon. On the focus on adding richness to the data collected
other hand, epistemology refers to how the reality is (Riyami, 2015). Since interpretivism takes into
known by the scientists (Carson et al., 2005). Hence, account relativist ontology and subjective
epistemology is concerned with the development of epistemology, humans are assumed to be
knowledge as well as the nature of objects. inseparable from knowledge. Therefore, Moustakas
Furthermore, epistemology is considered to be an (1994) claims that the interpretivist epistemology is
intra-researcher factor because it is also concerned the study of the interconnection between the
with how researchers are viewing the world around research and the research subject, and it is more
them, and it is about how researchers distinguish concerned with the meaning, voice, standpoint,
the research matters between right and wrong experience, thoughts, and feelings expressed by the
(Ryan, 2018). individual.

Based on the definitions of ontology and In addition, Tuli (2010) claims that since
epistemology, according to Hudson and Ozanne knowledge is the foundation of ontological
(1988), positivist ontology holds a naïve realism presuppositions, the ontological and epistemological
view that the world is external and that there is a positions of interpretivism are interconnected. The
single objective reality for any studied situation or ontological stance of interpretivism is based on
phenomenon, regardless of the researcher’s views constructivist ontology, which emphasizes the
and beliefs. Reality is similar for all people, and importance of cognitive orientation in
people have the ability to interpret society through interpretivism, arguing that social processes are
observation and measurement. Scotland (2012) driven by humans through interaction and action
further summarizes the main features of this under the assumption that social structures are not
paradigm as including objectivity, deductivism, naturally formed (Goldkuhl, 2012; Alharahsheh &
phenomenalism, and inductivism. This further Pius, 2020). Thus, the purpose of interpretivist
emphasizes the importance of science and the research is to study how particular social groups or
exploration of laws for the acquisition of knowledge. individuals formulate different realities and give
By contrast, interpretivist ontology adopts a them meaning, as well as to demonstrate how these
relativist view that perceives reality through norms explain their behavior. In general, the
intersubjectivity by considering meaning in research development of interpretivism is based on the
and understanding of social and experiential critique of positivism in the social sciences field.
aspects. Specifically, reality can only be explained in Unlike positivism, which tries to generalize the
a socially constructed sense. Saunders et al., (2012) observed social reality, interpretivism considers
add that because of the complexities of individuals human beings as different from natural phenomena
and social subject, there is often more than one due to their competence to develop depth in
truth. meaning. Therefore, Wellington and Szczerbinski
(2007) argue that interpretivism asserts that truth
In terms of epistemology, positivism and knowledge depend on how people interpret
believes in observable and measurable facts as a reality in different histories and cultures, using
basis. To measure and observe cause-effect relations narrative data for research, which is not the same as
should aim at developing credible and meaningful the research methods of the natural sciences.
data. Moreover, positivists believe that the argument
for widespread rules and laws is to support and The controversial positions of interpretivism
explore patterns or events observed within the According to Alharahsheh and Pius (2020),
organization (Carson et al., 2005). Contrary to the rules in the positivist paradigm do not theorize
interpretivism, which may be influenced by the the study of social science. Conversely,
subjective bias of the researcher, positivists adhere interpretivism considers the complexity of each
© 2022: Global Academic Journal’s Research Consortium (GAJRC) 11
Ma Junjie & Ma Yingxin, Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-4, Iss-1 (Jan-Feb, 2022): 10-14.
individual of the world and corresponding address the impact of ideology and politics on
explanations, and this paradigm emphasizes that society, such as the phenomenon of discrimination
generalizations of universal patterns should not in education.
obscure the complexity of society either. Collins
(2019) argues that interpretivism is related to Assessing confidence in the reliability of the
idealistic philosophical positions, including interpretivist paradigm
hermeneutics, phenomenology, and social Based on the critique of positivism in the
constructivism. These approaches reject the social sciences area, interpretivism emphasizes
objectivist view that meaning exists in the world qualitative analysis. Although there are many
independently of consciousness. critiques of the reliability of qualitative research, the
framework proposed by Lincoln and Guba (2006) is
Weber and Henderson (2012) point out that still effective in assessing the validity of the data and
the material natural world becomes meaningful only increasing researchers’ confidence in the data.
after researchers deconstruct it and give meaning,
which reveals that the interpretivist paradigm The credibility of qualitative research is
advocates examining the subjective meaning of demonstrated by whether the findings are
humans, social, and cultural systems of consistent with reality. Lincoln and Guba (2006)
understanding and practice. Thus, the interpretivist propose the following to achieve. The first is to have
position lies in studying the facts of society on the a randomly selected sample. In pedagogical
basis of the meaning of the subject under study. research, this represents a larger sample population,
Hammersley (2013) claims that human society and this method is effective in ensuring an equal
develops in the interpretation and understanding of distribution of the sample and reducing the error
individuality and commonality. This difference is introduced by the study population. Meanwhile,
centered on “the internal logic of social life and the researchers need to get to know the study
external data reasons of scientists” (p. 78). participants prior to initial data collection. Lincoln
Therefore, the interpretivist position emphasizes the and Guba (2006) suggest conducting a lengthy
recognition and exploration of these existing preliminary survey with participating students or
subjective meanings, while reconstructing and institutions prior to conducting pedagogy-related
theorizing them (Creswell, 2007). interviews. This approach can be effective in
establishing the trust between the participants and
Nevertheless, the critiques of the the researcher. However, Maxwell (2012) warns that
interpretivist paradigm position have also been such prolonged contact may influence the
widely discussed in recent years. Firstly, researcher’s subjective judgment as well as create
interpretivism cannot be considered to make a suspicion in the participants. In the process of
substantial contribution to social analysis. Hay collecting data, researchers should ensure that the
(2002) asserts that because interpretivism’s study is applicable to the context of qualitative
ontology can view the world from multiple research. In the educational case, Cohen et al. (2011)
perspectives, and because its norms require that state that the educational researcher should give
these perspectives be viewed equally, interpretivism participants an introduction to the relevant concepts
inevitably casts doubt on all epistemologies. This and guide them to add examples to their
degree of relativism can undermine the ethical perspectives. Equally important, ensuring the
responsibilities of scientists. To this extent, honesty of the research is also a must. Hammersley
interpretivism is a form of ‘nihilism’ that eliminates (2013) adds that the researchers should point out in
the possibility of knowledge (Clarke, 2009). advance the most appropriate ways to answer the
Secondly, the interpretivist position aims to gain a research questions and maintain an equal
deeper understanding of the phenomenon in a relationship with the participants, which requires
complex context rather than generalizing it to other both parties to the study to remain honest. In
domains, which can leave gaps in the validity of the addition, Shenton (2004) points out that the
verification results (Cohen et al., 2011). Equally researchers should encourage the student
important, Tuli (2010) claims that since the ontology participant to share his views and emphasize his
of interpretivism tends to be subjective, it is often independent position. According to Bryman (2008),
contradictory in explaining social phenomena. the data collection process in the educational field
Meanwhile, the research results will inevitably should be long-term. For example, the ethnography
receive the influence of the researcher’s personal approach is used to conduct a four-month fieldwork
values and interpretations, which often causes bias. at a university to observe the effectiveness of the
Moreover, Hay (2002) also criticizes that because pedagogy. After data collection is completed, Riyami
the interpretivist paradigm aims at understanding (2015) claims that the researchers also conduct
current social phenomena rather than focusing on member testing, that is, by going back to the
the rights of individuals and society, it fails to participant interviews and questioning the
© 2022: Global Academic Journal’s Research Consortium (GAJRC) 12
Ma Junjie & Ma Yingxin, Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-4, Iss-1 (Jan-Feb, 2022): 10-14.
participants to check the authenticity of the interpretivism: An appraisal of Hay’s via media.
interview text. Politics, 29(1), 28–36.
 Chen, X. M. (1996). Dingxing yanjiu fangfa
In terms of transferability, although the pingjie [A review of qualitative research
situational-specific nature of qualitative research methods]. Educational Research and Experiment,
dictates that it cannot generalize conventional 3, 62-68.
concepts, there are contexts in which one can assess  Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K.
whether the research findings are similar to (2005). Qualitative Marketing Research. London:
previous ones (Cho & Trent, 2006). For this reason, Sage.
transferability requires the researcher to provide  Collins, H. J. (2019). Creative research the theory
details of the setting and events that occurred, and and practice of research for the Creative
the detailed descriptions allow the readers to Industries. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
evaluate whether the research can be applied  Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design.
elsewhere, such as whether a particular pedagogy Qualitative and mixed methods approach.
can be applied to other contexts. Since the concepts London: Sage.
involved in pedagogy are dynamic rather than static,  Cohen, L., Manion. L., & Morrison, K. (2011).
the researcher needs to clarify the research process Research methods in education. London:
in order to identify the models involved so that Routledge.
dependability can be achieved, Brock-Utne (1996)
 Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative
further recommends that external review could be
research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3),
used to ensure the dependability of the study. As for
319–340.
the confirmability, Stromquist (2000) proposes that
 Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs
the researcher needs to provide a clear and
interpretivism in qualitative information
comprehensive description of the research process
systems research. European journal of
so that the reader can assess the confirmability of
information systems, 21(2), 135-146.
the study, which is also described as a vetting
 Howell, K. E. (2013). Empiricism, positivism and
process.
post-positivism. In An introduction to the

philosophy of methodology (pp. 32–54). London:
Concluding Remarks
SAGE Publications Ltd.
The positivism and interpretivism discussed
 Heidegger, M. (2013). Being and Time. Stellar
in this paper have been proven to have many
Books.
differences. To reach this conclusion, this paper
 Hudson, L. A., & Ozanne, J. L. (1988). Alternative
begins by summarizing that the ontological position
ways of seeking knowledge in consumer
discusses the nature of reality, while the
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4),
epistemological position discusses the development
508.
of truth. The paper goes on to discuss the positivism
 Hammersley, M. (2013). What is Qualitative
which focuses on statistical results and
Research? London and New York: Bloomsburry.
generalizations of universals, while interpretivism
 Hay, C. (2002), Political Analysis: A Critical
emphasizes the subjective meaning of the study
Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
subject. Ultimately, the reliability of qualitative
 Kuhn, T. S. (2015). The structure of Scientific
research can be measured by credibility,
Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.
transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2006). Naturalistic
The debate about positivism versus interpretivism
inquiry. Sage Publications.
will always exist, and researchers should analyze
 Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological
specific issues and choose the appropriate research
Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
method.
 Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for
qualitative research. Sage Publications.
REFERENCES
 Ryan, G. (2018). Introduction to positivism,
 Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A review of
Interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse
key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism.
Researcher, 25(4), 14–20.
Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social
 Riyami, A. T. (2015). Main Approaches to
Sciences, 2(3), 39-43.
Educational Research. International Journal of
 Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods.
Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences,
Oxford University Press.
2(5), 412-416.
 Brock-Utne, B. (1996). Reliability and validity in
 Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical
qualitative research within education in Africa.
Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology
International Review of Education, 42(6), 605–
and Epistemology to the Methodology and
621.
Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and
 Clarke, C. (2009). Paths between positivism and
© 2022: Global Academic Journal’s Research Consortium (GAJRC) 13
Ma Junjie & Ma Yingxin, Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-4, Iss-1 (Jan-Feb, 2022): 10-14.
Critical Research Paradigms. English Language quantitative and qualitative in social science:
Teaching, 5(9), 9-16. reflection on ontological, epistemological and
 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). methodological perspectives. Ethiopian Journal
Research methods for business students. Pearson. of Education and Science, 6 (1), 97-108.
 Stromquist, N. P. (2000). On truth, voice, and  Weber, M., & Henderson, A. M. (2012). Max
Qualitative Research. International Journal of Weber: The theory of social and economic
Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(2), 139–152. organization. Martino Publishing.
 Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring  Wellington, J., & Szczerbinski, M. (2007).
trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Research methods for the social sciences, London:
Education for information, 22(2), 63-75. Continuum.
 Tuli, F. (2010). The basis of distinction between

© 2022: Global Academic Journal’s Research Consortium (GAJRC) 14