Positivism

Positivism with its deep roots in the land of research deserves properly to be dealt with here as
the first paradigm. Mertens (2005, p.8) sees positivism "based on rationalistic, empiricist
philosophy that originated with Aristotle, Francis Bacon, John Lock, August Comte, and
Emmanuel Kant." It has roots in Aristotelian syllogism; a kind of logical argument defined by
Cohn as " one consisting of a major premise based on an a priori or self-evidentproposition, a
minor premise providing a particular instance, and a conclusion." In this line of argumentation,
people attempt to understand a phenomenon from the general to a particular valid conclusion
known as "deductive approach." However, in 1600s Francis Bacon added by means of
observation one can make hypothesis which can be proved and generalized through inductive
reasoning as well. For many years, scientists have got advantages of these two logical bases to
test their hypotheses against 'objective reality' in order to reach a generalizable law (absolute
truth) in the field of natural science.
positivism then you will probably adopt the philosophical stance of the natural scientist. You will
prefer working with an observable social reality and that the end product of such research can be
law-like generalizations similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientists
(Remenyi et al. 1998:32). Like the resources researcher earlier, only phenomena that you can
observe will lead to the production of credible data. Another important component of the
positivist approach to research is that the research is undertaken, as far as possible, in a valuefree way. At first sight this is a plausible position, particularly when one contrasts the perspective
of the resources researcher with the feelings researcher in our earlier example. The resources
researcher would claim to be external to the process of data collection in the sense that there is
little that can be done to alter the substance of the data collected. The assumption is that the
researcher is independent of and neither affects nor is affected by the subject of the research
(Remenyi et al. 1998:33). One major criticism of positivism is the issue of separating the
researcher from what is being researched. The expectation that a researcher can observe without
allowing values or interests interfering is arguably impossible (Hustler in Somekh & Lewin,
2005). As a result, positivism today, also known as post-positivism, acknowledges that, even
though absolute truth cannot be established, there are knowledge claims that are still valid in that
they can be logically inferred; we should not resort to epistemological skepticism or relativism
(Hammersley, n.d.). Positivist research methods include experiments and tests, that is,
particularly those methods that can be controlled, measured and used to support a hypothesis. It
is frequently advocated that the positivist researcher will be likely to use a highly structured
methodology in order to facilitate replication (Gill and Johnson 2002). Furthermore, the
emphasis will be on quantifiable observations that lend themselves to statistical analysis.
However, as you read through this chapter and the next you will note that this may not
necessarily be the case since it is perfectly possible to adopt some of the characteristics of
positivism in your research, for example hypothesis testing, using data originally collected in indepth interviews.

CONFLUENCE

ISSN: 2250-138X
Later on, August Comte was the first thinker who used

22-23 February
2013
framework for

sociology. As Crotty (2009, p.23) mentions "certainly it [positivism] had been popular among
natural scientists but what Comte has done was its passing from the hands of working
scientists to those of theoretical scientists and philosophers." Cohen, L. & et al (2006, p.8)
point out that "positivism implies a particular stance concerning the social scientist as an
observer of social reality... their analyses must be expressed in laws or lawlike generalizations of the same kind that have been established in relation to natural
phenomena." Accordingly, Mertens (2005) argued that positivism has been applied to the
social world on the assumption that "the social world can be studied in the same way as the
natural world, that there is a method for studying the social world that is value free, and that
explanations of a causal nature can be provided." (qtd. in Mackenzie, N. Knipes, S. 2006,
p.16).
Later on, August Comte was the first thinker who used
framework for
sociology. As Crotty (2009, p.23) mentions "certainly it [positivism] had been popular among
natural scientists but what Comte has done was its passing from the hands of working scientists
to those of theoretical scientists and philosophers." Cohen, L. & et al (2006, p.8) point out that
"positivism implies a particular stance concerning the social scientist as an observer of social
reality... their analyses must be expressed in laws or law-like generalizations of the same kind
that have been established in relation to natural phenomena." Accordingly, Mertens (2005)
argued that positivism has been applied to the social world on the assumption that "the social
world can be studied in the same way as the natural world, that there is a method for studying the
social world that is value free, and that explanations of a causal nature can be provided." (qtd. in
Mackenzie, N. Knipes, S. 2006, p.16).To be short, Greener (2011, p.12) views positivism based
on the idea that there exists an independent reality which can accessed and investigated... From
this assumption comes the claim that knowledge is good if it represents that reality... we know
something is true if, by investigating it empirically, it seems to be the case. What follows is a
brief run-down of different ways to figure out the possible answers to the research question
known as methodology in the positivist paradigm.

Interpretivisim (Naturalism)
The ontological perspective of interpretive paradigm is based on relativism. As Crotty(2009, p.
43) touches on "what is said to be the way things are is really just the sense we make of them ."
In other words, an individual may interpret the same phenomenon differently.Interpretivists
believe that the reality is not a fact out there, needed to be found but it is constructed in peoples'
mind.
The epistemological view of interpretivisits is constructionism. This is what Crotty defines as
"the view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon
human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their
world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context.
Naturalistic is neither deductive nor inductive in nature. Instead it is an interpretive process of
constructing a worldview regarding a specific issue based on how well he/she can individually
interpret it. This is what Greener (2011, p. 15) terms as "abductive". As it would suggest that
although the reality exists independent of our conceptions of it, our interpretation of it might be

different from individual to individual or group to group. It aims to advance personal knowledge,
to understand and make sense of the world or to interpret the social reality through individuals'
perspectives which is inductive in nature. Therefore, epistemologically speaking, interpretivism
bases itself on the "objective knowledge of an individual" rather than an "absolutism" in
positivism. To draw comparative conclusions, Grixs(2004, p. 82) sees the positivists seeking
objectivity while interpretivits believe in subjectivity; the positivists tending to model their
research on the natural sciences while the interpretivists believe there is a clear distinction to be
made between the natural and social world, and therefore we need methodology and methods of
gathering data that are more in tune with the subjects we are studying. In addition, a naturalistic
is different from a scientific one in terms of methodology, where the naturalists make use of
qualitative and case studies to respond sensitivity to individuals and contexts. In the following
their methodology is given in brief.

Pragmatism
The glass is half full or half empty? Either answer would make us fall under one specific
paradigm. Yet, to a pragmatist, the usage of the glass and its both empty and full portions matter.
This " logic in use" (Kaplan,1964) is what that mingles the theory and practice in order to reach a
more applicable approach towards the outside world. Not taken as a paradigm by many,
pragmatism, to my understanding, is more of a mixed-model nature that strives to maintain the
balance in theory so as to reach the most effective outcome practice-wise.
Paradigms are different in terms of their ontological and epistemological bases, which, in turn,
lead to different ways of understanding. To achieve a better understanding of a phenomenon, one
would want to adopt a number of different views rather than only one.
The necessity for a mixed model is also vivid in, Gage's (1989, p. 7) remark that the
"philosophical analysis resulted in a triumph of pragmatic resolutions of paradigm differences
over claims of exclusive possession of one true paradigm." In short, it is understood that nothing
about objective-quantitative research precluded the description and analysis of classroom
processes with interpretive-qualitative method. The researchers realized that they all share the
same ideal; that is social or educational development. Hence, no matter whether a research is
done based on positivism, interpretivism, or critical orientation, the importance is to achieve the
goal effectively. As Maxcy (2003) points out " taking a pragmatic and balanced or pluralist
position will help improve communication among researchers from different paradigms as they
attempt to advance knowledge." (qtd. in Burke, J., & Onweuegbuzie,A. 2004, p. 16).

Burke & Onweuegbuzie (2004, p. 17) believe that "if two ontological positions about the
mind/body problem (e.g. monism versus dualism), for example, do not make a difference in how
we conduct our research then the distinction is, for practical purposes, not very meaningful."
They believe that some philosophical differences may lead to important practical consequences
while many others may not. Although mixed model or pragmatism may not put an end to

philosophical debates, it could be productive because it offers an immediate and useful middle
position philosophically and methodologically. A major source of justification for mixed model
research is to "mix qualitative and quantitative approaches within or across the stages of research
process" in order to confirm and also to understand the phenomena at the level of
conceptualization. What still strikes many here about this conceptualization is that how on earth
it is possible to mingle two different entities at their conceptual level. It is up to researchers to
select monomethod, mixed method, or mixed model with respect to their underlying research
questions.