Positivism and Interpretivism

Positivism and Interpretivism

 

Epistemology is the assumptions humans make on the nature of knowledge. Positivism and interpretivism are epistemological positions adopted by researchers. Positivism relies on the scientific investigation, which is based on quantitative methods which include surveys, questionnaires official statistics and analysis. Stace (1944) gave priority to positivism; the statement means how to verify itself, which is significant. It is intended the verification is straight and complete. It demonstrates that verification and consideration are the basis of positivism (Stace, 1944). Interpretivism is part and parcel of epistemology as its general focus in social research is to gain a more in-depth insight of people to get an empathetic understanding of why they act in a particular manner.

Interpretivism is similar to positivism, whereas it should be considered about the behaviour factor of human being, and research methods would include participant observation and unstructured interviews. Bryman (2016) showed his view that positivism, which is a part of epistemology, should apply the same methods and approaches like those of natural science to study social world while interpretivism goes against ‘scientific sociology’ due to the fact of the statistics it relies on which are socially constructed. It has been discovered that a method is required to obey various points between some real existence and humanity, and it needs a social scientist to know how to understand social action by subjective perspectives. It demonstrates that social action examination, people and social elements should be considered by interpretivism—however, positivism only research objective facts (Bryman, 2016).

There are still many real differences from a broader perspective. In this way, positivism can get a link or issue straightforwardly; having some ways to gain the results, for instance, statistical data, structured-interviews. As reported by the research of the connection between poverty and crime by Hipp & Yates (2011), through observing and corresponding figures, it responds that debt has strong nonlinear influences in criminal rates. It is an actual method and an excellent example in positivism through data examination and getting a conclusion.

The approach of interpretivism and positivism also differ in the field of philosophy as positivism pays more attention to the objective; it looks at the relationships between two or more variables. In contrast, interpretivism tends to subjective, to understand human actions we need empathetic understanding. By the same topic, a study by Foster (1995), interpretivism owns plenty of idealism elements. He demonstrated humanistic education in a living region in the east of London through the observation of participant and semi-structured investigations; it is about an area called Riverside. This community has

a high criminal level; the authorized figures about crime are critical and severe. However, Foster found the native residents didn’t believe their living area had a dangerous criminal level. A large number of other elements could lead the view directly, whereas the public judged the existence of “informal social control” as a particularly significant reason. The Dweller can accept several favourable rates of wicked things; they thought they were safe because the administrator limited informal social information which could let people be anxiety to residents. And it is critical to allow residents to know and understand what environment they are living in. Also, accepting things is more crucial to take what people think and behave. It exposes interpretivism considers more than positivism in many times if referring to positivism solutions. Foster would discover the increased level of crime is dependent on increased poverty. Semi-structure contains human’s activities and considering, while human’s thinking and performance may affect the research, not as positivism result.

Besides, a significant perceptive should be considered how to acquire knowledge. Positivism study can collect information from typical social research. For instance, systematical investigation, conclusion, and evaluating figures. Interpretivism study could gain information from Semi-structured survey and consult public views. However, positivism and interpretivism are similar in the aspect of value freedom as researchers keep their values ranging from personal, political and religious to themselves to avoid any interference in the process of research.

 

 

 

 

Reference

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press. Fifth Edition, p27-34.

 

Foster, J. (1995). Informal social control and community crime prevention. British Journal of Criminology, 35(4), 563-583.

 

Hipp, J., & Yates, D. (2011). GHETTOS, THRESHOLDS, AND CRIME: DOES CONCENTRATED POVERTY HAVE AN ACCELERATING INCREASING EFFECT ON CRIME?*. Criminology, 49(4), 955-990.

 

Stace, W. (1944). Positivism. Mind, 53(211), 215-237.