Positivism vs interpretive

Positivism Vs Interpretive Assignment Help Fraser et al., (2004) suggested that the development of a scientific approach as a mean to explore the world that surrounds us emerged around the time of the European Renaissance dating from the 14th and 15th century and continue through the so-called enlighten Period in the 18th century.

Howe (2009) suggested that when looking at the positivist approach, it can be implied that its application reached its peak during the 1970’s, when it became the preferred methodology to conduct investigations in the research field.

In similar note to Howe (2009), an interesting article that was produced by Steinmentz (2005) suggested that positivism had a marked period of dominance from 1945 until the 1970’s, especially when it comes to history and sociology. However, such dominance according to Keane (2005) was not present in the anthropological field.

Interesting enough, the suggestion provided by Howe (2009) gives a hint on the fact that Postivism actually peaked and from there a decline in its application was witnessed through academically scholar papers, giving way to the interpretive framework.

Moreover 1970 onwards the domination of the positivism approach started to decline yet despite all the different challenges it faced, as well as the constant attack from many different disciplines, the application presented a surprising level of resilience.

One of the most illustrating comments of the criticism directed towards the positivist approach is provided by Steinmentz (2005a, 17) who suggested that the application of positivism in the field of sociology has had an unexpected and unnaturally long life.

Others authors such as Denzin & Lincoln (2005), as well as Ridenour & Newman (2008) have similarly stated that it was only during the 80’s that research applications shifted towards the qualitative field, thus showing an increase of qualitative investigations across many different fields, which years ago preferably inclined researchers to rely on positivist investigation.

Hughes (2001) provides an overview of the positivist paradigm and suggested that the approach sees the world ruled by universal and unchanging laws and under the preconception that everything that occurs around could be explained through the study and the understanding of these specific universal laws.

Johnson & Christensen (2007) have also pointed out that positivist investigators had to make other assumptions including the fact that they should operate within a set of agreed practices and norms, as well as the idea that it is possible through the application of a positivist framework to distinguish between claims for which science cannot necessarily provide all the answers.

On a similar note, Collis & Hussey (2009) also provide the reason why the interpretive approach has become the alternative approach, especially when it came to deal with all the shortcomings of the positivist paradigm.

For example, Collis & Hussey (2009) suggested that one of the initial debates was around the selection of an epistemological approach when conducting a particular research in the field of social sciences.

In fact, Gage (1989) suggested that debates would turn into paradigmatic wars that eventually would lead to real and tangible philosophical divisions. Other authors such as Guba (1990) have also stated that the differences in rhetoric and language have also been a common facilitator of the division and ‘paradigmatic wars’ suggested by Gage (1989).

Bryman (2004) also added that the most common argument would be based on whether or not a social world can be evaluated and further studied according to the principles applied through natural sciences.

It needs to be noted that although the researcher did not fully agree with the view of Steinmentz (2005a,17) the aspect that positivism would spark rejection after its peak mentioned of the 1970, as well as the room to grow of the interpretive approach have positively influenced the researcher to select the interpretive approach for the present investigation.

In summary, the debate has always been circling around the two different schools of thoughts that are based on the positivist and interpretive frameworks.

Having provided an overview on the origins and definition of the interpretive approach, it is also important to understand the different descriptions found in the literature in regards to the positivist approach.

For example, Collis & Hussey (2009) suggested that the positivist approach is the methodology that can also be known as the scientific method. This particular approach is used to test deductive-hypothetic generalizations while the interpretive approach is the one that is used to conduct qualitative approaches, mostly based on an inductive holistic form that is ultimately applied to understand the human experience on a particular given context.

When contrasting the differences between the two approaches, Baker (2001) suggested that the main difference between them lies on the personal philosophy that the investigator itself will be adopting and how the researcher decides to apply it.

Others such as the case of Thomson (2008) stated that the difference between the two is very subtle, to the point that the difference that exists between quantitative and qualitative research is in fact very small.

Others such as the case of Silverman (2001) have stated the complete opposite theory of what Thomson (2008) and Baker (2001) have suggested, whereby this author has strongly stated that, in fact, the division between the two is quite significant and to the point that the approaches have split into two separated armed camps.

Furthermore, Bryman (2004) suggested that the idea that a unity of scientific methods would exist was another positivist assumption that in time became challenged by the many researchers that like Silverman (2005) suggested, took a stand and formed two separate armed camps.

Silverman (2001) have presented an interesting suggestion and in this particular case the researcher clearly shares the same philosophical perspective as the two approaches should not be mixed, especially when they see the world and the results emerging from the positivist and interpretive investigation standing in two separate fronts.

Neumann (2003) further added that positivism is able to manifest a deductive approach with empirical observations of multiple individual behaviors in order to confirm a different set of variables that together can be used to predict a specific human behavior. Neumann (2003) has also suggested that the approach is more focused on the usage of experiments and observations above anything else.

Marczyk et al, (2005) suggested that positivism also holds true to the notion that occurrences tend to exist apart from any personal thought and these are governed by laws of cause and effect, which in turn, can be studied accordingly.

According to Guba & Lincoln (1985) through the application of an interpretive approach, researchers are able to also develop and apply a constructive perspective. Moreover, Guba & Lincoln (1985) suggested that those applying an interpretive approach tend to see the world as a construct that is formed by the interaction of people between each other as well as with the social system.

If the view provided by Guba & Linconl did not give enough reasons for the researcher to select the interpretive framework, the view provide Farzanfar (2005) clearly complements the case.

In his argument, Farzanfar (2005) have added that the main purpose within the study and evaluation of a phenomenon is to understand a problem in a far deeper and more meaningful way. Ulin et al, (2004) suggested that the main purpose of an interpretive approach is purely inductive and is oriented towards the idea of discovery and the understanding of such findings.

When looking at positivism, the approach is characterized by the way that is laid out by both advocates as well as critics (e.g. Smith et al, 1995, p. 2-4, Polkinghorne 1983, p. 15-20).

Those authors that mainly have been influenced by positivist-oriented investigations have found the application of qualitative researcher as nothing less than appropriate, especially during the first stage of the approach where the development of hypothesis as well as testing is definitely more rigorous and precise and that particular aspect would enable a researcher to produce a scientific law. Therefore the applied qualitative research interviews concerning cheating would certainly be expected as it would allow discovering different interesting hypotheses about the nature of the student behavior.

In continuation, such hypotheses might be further tested by the application of structured questions that would include the usage of rating scales that would be designed to quantify all those variables that have been highlighted as possible factors in the decision to cheat or by the application of other quantitative approaches. (Roberts & Toombs, 1993) From the author personal perspective and comparing the grounded theory of Glasser, Strauss & Corbin (1990) present many hallmarks and traits of the positivism approach, despite the application of qualitative techniques which are seen appropriate to the whole process more than just simply to the early discovery phase.

Some of the users of this particular approach, such as the case of Charmaz (1995) have explicitly rejected the positivism developed by its founders however it is explicit in the original exposition of the grounded theory that in fact the data related to an unequivocal underlying reality.

As suggested through the chapter the philosophical position of the researcher is that perfection is unknowable and that the objectivity professed through the positivist approach, much like Johnson & Christensen (2007) suggested will be subject to assumptions leaving a hint on imperfection in its approach. It is for this pretentious superiority over the interpretive framework and the inability to understand the view that are able to form what is known as a complex world that the researcher ultimately gravitated towards the application of an interpretive framework.