Positivism and Interpretivism

What are the definitions of positivism and interpretivism?

Simply put, positivism and interpretivism are two very different perspectives on how we can obtain knowledge about the world.

Positivism and interpretivism are evaluated both in terms of the theories themselves, and the research methods that they favour.

Positivism

The positivist approach was heavily endorsed by early sociologists such as Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim.

The underlying premise of positivism is that we should learn about the world in the same way that the natural sciences (such as biologists, chemists and physicists) do so. This involves following a scientific method, the key components of which are:

• to develop hypotheses (or 'predictions') about the nature of things,

• to use systematic methods to either prove or disprove those predictions, and

• to focus on studying phenomena that can be directly observed, as well as statistically measured.

For positivists, the main aim of research is to discover objective facts.

Interpretivism

Interpretivism is a theoretical approach which directly opposes the positivist approach by stating that knowledge about society and human beings cannot be objectively known.

As opposed to positivism, the underlying premise of interpretivism is that we cannot use scientific methods to obtain knowledge about the world.

The main aim of interpretivism is not to discover object facts, but to understand the meanings that people attach to certain behaviours and experiences. They recognise that these insights are subjective, but see more value in them when it comes to obtaining knowledge about the world.

How are positivism and interpretivism implemented in sociology?

Alongside other practical concerns, sociologists base their research aims and methods on their personal positivist or interpretivist perspectives. Thus, in the context of sociology, positivism and interpretivism are the theoretical factors which affect a researcher's choice of methods.

The debate about the value and 'correctness' of positivism and interpretivism is one that dates back to the early days of sociology.

Positivism in sociology

Positivists seek out numerical, objective facts as their main source of knowledge.

Positivistic sociological research

Positivists tend to prefer quantitative research methods. Examples of preferred research methods include:

• social surveys and questionnaires,

• structured interviews, and

• the use of official statistics.

The relationship between society and the individual

In the context of the relationship between society and the individual, positivists argue that society shapes the individual. People adopt their respective norms, values and behaviour based on how they've been socialised by external forces (such as the family, the education system, religion and more).

Interpretivism in sociology

Interpretivists seek out subjective meanings and interpretations as their main source of knowledge.

Interpretivist sociological research

They believe that the social domain cannot be studied using scientific methods because human beings (the subject matter of sociology) behave completely differently to objects and non-human animals (the subject matter of the natural sciences).

The fact that interpretivists value the meanings behind human experiences means that they tend to prefer qualitative research methods. Examples of preferred research methods include:

• participant observation,

• focus groups, and

• in-depth (or 'unstructured') interviews.

The relationship between society and the individual

In the context of the relationship between society and the individual, interpretivists argue that the individual has the power to reject external forces. People do not unthinkingly absorb the information and instructions of the wider society. Rather, they can think critically about the messages that they are receiving and respond to those messages in terms of their own, individual, subjective interpretations.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of positivism and interpretivism?

Positivism and interpretivism are theoretical viewpoints that shape our research designs. Pexels.com

As is the case with all theoretical approaches in sociology, there are significant advantages and disadvantages that we need to consider when it comes to positivism and interpretivism.

The strengths and limitations of positivism and interpretivism can be both:

• internal (the inherent issues with the approach itself), and
• external (criticisms of the approach that are raised by other approaches).

Evaluation of positivism

Let's take a look at the strengths and limitations of positivism as a basis for research design in sociology.

Advantages of positivism

There are several practical advantages of the positivist approach, which mostly arise from its link with quantitative research methods.

• Quantitative methods tend to be quicker and easier to implement. For instance, sending out an online questionnaire is significantly more time-consuming than conducting in-depth interviews.

• Quantitative methods are also cheaper to carry out. In line with the above example, in-depth interviews often require training researchers to both conduct the interviews and to analyse responses (such as establishing a coding frame). This requires extra funding.

• Positivists endorse the collection of numerical data, so the research methods which they use are often standardised and replicable, and their findings are reliable. This means that an identical research project can be conducted multiple times to draw comparisons between different places and times.

• Finally, quantitative methods often have the benefit of generalisability because they can be conducted with much bigger samples. For instance, it is much more practical to send out closed-question social surveys to 1000 people than it is to conduct in-depth interviews with 1000 people. In most instances, the latter is not only impractical - it's actually impossible! In this sense, using quantitative methods means researchers can conduct their research on much bigger and more representative samples.

Disadvantages of positivism

Interpretivists critique positivism believe that we cannot study human beings in the same way that we study the phenomena of the natural sciences. This is because human beings are very different and much more complex than inanimate objects or non-human animals.

For instance, we can discern from studying world history that humanity is constantly changing. Whether this is the result of new political regimes, technological or social developments, the ever-changing nature of human beings is based on an important idea which positivism fails to consider: that the interactions and subjective meanings that we attach to our experiences are what shape our society.

Evaluation of interpretivism

Now, let's evaluate the interpretivist approach for its strengths and limitations in terms of its application in sociological research.

Advantages of interpretivism

By using qualitative research methods, interpretivists can ensure a high level of validity in their research findings. This is because they can clarify certain concepts with the respondent, and seek out information that they might have missed out on if they were asking closed-questions.

Furthermore, the interpretivist approach considers the social context of the phenomena they are studying, which is particularly relevant in sociology.

Another key benefit of interpretivist research methods is that they allow the researcher to find out, in depth, the meanings and interpretations which people attach to the world around them.

Disadvantages of interpretivism

Just as interpretivists critique the positivist approach, there are several criticisms of interpretivism put across by positivists as well. As such, you might notice that many of the external critiques of interpretivism are the same as the strengths of positivism.

• The qualitative research methods that interpretivists value are expensive and time-consuming to implement. The conducting of in-depth interviews, for example, takes much longer than administrating a simple, closed-question survey online. Research which seeks to use interviews as a main method will also require skilled interviewers, many of whom must be specifically trained.

• Furthermore, the fact that qualitative research methods are so much more time-consuming and costly means that they can't be conducted on a large scale. Therefore, information that is collected using the interpretivist approach cannot be generalised to the wider population, but only represents a small fraction of it.

• The lack of a standardised approach means that interpretivist research methods aren't replicable - they can't be repeatedly conducted to confirm the initial results.

A mixed-methods approach

A system that social science researchers have come up with to combine the strengths of positivist and interpretivist approaches is to use a mixed-methods approach. Here, the researcher will incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methods into their research design. This is done in order to avoid the limitations of either method interfering with the research findings.

There are significant advantages to triangulating in sociological research:

• Researchers can cross-check the data that are generated from quantitative research with the information that they have collected in qualitative research.

• The final body of information is much richer and more well-rounded than it might have been if qualitative or quantitative methods were used on their own.

• Triangulation helps researchers combine the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. While they can gain valuable, in-depth insights into people's interpretations and experiences, they can also measure the strength of connection between multiple variables.

How can we compare and contrast positivism and interpretivism?

We can summarise the key points of these two theoretical perspectives to help further our understanding of the fundamental differences between them.

Comparing positivism and interpretivism