Postpositivism vs. Pragmatism

Attribute	Postpositivism	Pragmatism
Epistemology	Believes in the existence of an objective reality that can be known through scientific methods	Focuses on the practical consequences of beliefs and emphasizes the importance of experimentation and experience
Ontology	Believes in a single reality that exists independently of human perception	Views reality as constantly changing and shaped by human experiences and actions
Methodology	Emphasizes the use of scientific methods and empirical evidence to test hypotheses	Values practical outcomes and the usefulness of theories in solving real-world problems
Truth	Seeks to uncover objective truths through rigorous scientific inquiry	Defines truth as what works in practice and is useful for achieving goals

Introduction

Postpositivism and pragmatism are two philosophical approaches that have been influential in the field of social science research. While they share some similarities, they also have distinct differences in their underlying assumptions and methodologies. In this article, we will compare the attributes of postpositivism and pragmatism to better understand their implications for research.

Ontology

Postpositivism is based on a realist ontology, which posits that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human perception. Postpositivists believe that it is possible to uncover this reality through empirical observation and scientific inquiry. In contrast, pragmatism is more focused on the practical consequences of beliefs and actions. Pragmatists are less concerned with the existence of an objective reality and more interested in how beliefs and actions can be useful in achieving desired outcomes.

Epistemology

Postpositivism emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and the scientific method in generating knowledge. Postpositivists believe that knowledge can be obtained through systematic observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning. Pragmatism, on the other hand, is more flexible in its approach to knowledge. Pragmatists are open to multiple ways of knowing, including personal experience, intuition, and social interaction. They are less concerned with finding absolute truths and more focused on what works in practice.

Methodology

Postpositivism is associated with a deductive approach to research, where hypotheses are formulated based on existing theories and then tested through empirical observation. Postpositivists prioritize objectivity, reliability, and validity in their research methods. In contrast, pragmatism is more aligned with an inductive approach, where theories are developed based on observations and experiences. Pragmatists are more concerned with the practical implications of their research and may use a variety of methods, including qualitative and mixed methods approaches.

Values

Postpositivism values objectivity, neutrality, and generalizability in research. Postpositivists strive to minimize bias and subjectivity in their studies in order to produce reliable and valid results. Pragmatism, on the other hand, values practicality, utility, and contextuality. Pragmatists are more interested in how research can be applied to real-world problems and may prioritize the relevance of their findings over their generalizability.

Critiques

Postpositivism has been criticized for its reliance on a positivist view of science, which some argue is too narrow and restrictive. Critics of postpositivism argue that it overlooks the role of values, assumptions, and social context in shaping scientific knowledge. Pragmatism, on the other hand, has been criticized for its relativist tendencies and lack of emphasis on truth. Critics of pragmatism argue that it can lead to a lack of rigor and accountability in research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, postpositivism and pragmatism are two distinct philosophical approaches that have different implications for social science research. While postpositivism emphasizes objectivity, empiricism, and deductive reasoning, pragmatism values practicality, flexibility, and inductive reasoning. Researchers should carefully consider the underlying assumptions and methodologies of each approach when designing their studies in order to produce meaningful and relevant findings.