Interpretative vs. Positivism

Attribute	Interpretative	Positivism
Ontology	Multiple subjective realities	Objective reality
Epistemology	Subjective understanding	Objective knowledge
Methodology	Qualitative methods	Quantitative methods
Research Focus	Meaning and interpretation	Facts and causality

Introduction

Interpretative and Positivism are two contrasting approaches in social science research. While both aim to understand human behavior and society, they differ in their underlying assumptions, methodologies, and goals. In this article, we will explore the key attributes of Interpretative and Positivism and compare their strengths and weaknesses.

Interpretative Approach

The Interpretative approach, also known as qualitative research, focuses on understanding the meanings and interpretations that individuals give to their experiences. Researchers using this approach seek to uncover the subjective perspectives of individuals and the social context in which these perspectives are formed. Interpretative research often involves in-depth interviews, observations, and analysis of texts or artifacts to gain insights into the complexities of human behavior.

• Emphasis on subjective meanings
• Focus on social context
• Qualitative data collection methods
• Inductive reasoning
• Rich, detailed descriptions

Positivism Approach

The Positivism approach, also known as quantitative research, is based on the belief that social phenomena can be studied objectively and measured using scientific methods. Positivist researchers aim to identify patterns, relationships, and causal mechanisms through the collection and analysis of numerical data. This approach emphasizes the use of statistical techniques to test hypotheses and make generalizations about the social world.

• Emphasis on objectivity
• Focus on empirical evidence
• Quantitative data collection methods
• Deductive reasoning
• Generalizable findings

Comparison of Attributes

Interpretative and Positivism differ in several key attributes, including their ontological and epistemological assumptions, research methodologies, and goals. The Interpretative approach is rooted in the belief that reality is socially constructed and subjective, while Positivism assumes that reality is objective and can be observed and measured. This fundamental difference shapes the way researchers in each approach collect and analyze data.

Interpretative researchers often use qualitative methods such as interviews, observations, and content analysis to explore the meanings and interpretations that individuals give to their experiences. They focus on understanding the complexities of human behavior and the social context in which it occurs. In contrast, Positivist researchers rely on quantitative methods such as surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis to identify patterns, relationships, and causal mechanisms in the social world.

Another key difference between Interpretative and Positivism is their approach to theory-building. Interpretative researchers tend to develop theories based on their empirical findings, using inductive reasoning to generate hypotheses from their data. They prioritize rich, detailed descriptions and seek to uncover the subjective perspectives of individuals. In contrast, Positivist researchers often start with a theoretical framework and use deductive reasoning to test hypotheses and make predictions about the social world. They prioritize objectivity and aim to produce generalizable findings.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Both Interpretative and Positivism have their strengths and weaknesses. The Interpretative approach allows researchers to gain a deep understanding of the subjective meanings and interpretations that individuals give to their experiences. It is well-suited for exploring complex social phenomena and uncovering the nuances of human behavior. However, Interpretative research can be criticized for its lack of generalizability and the potential for researcher bias to influence the findings.

On the other hand, Positivism is valued for its emphasis on objectivity, empirical evidence, and the ability to produce generalizable findings. It allows researchers to test hypotheses and make predictions about the social world, leading to the development of robust theories. However, Positivist research can be criticized for its reliance on numerical data, which may oversimplify the complexities of human behavior and overlook important contextual factors.

In conclusion, Interpretative and Positivism are two distinct approaches in social science research, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Researchers should carefully consider the underlying assumptions, methodologies, and goals of each approach when designing their studies. By understanding the key attributes of Interpretative and Positivism, researchers can make informed decisions about the most appropriate approach to use in their research.