Differentiate between positivist and phenomenological paradigms

The Positivist Paradigm Positivist is origin from Descarte. Others have traced these beliefs back to Galileo. Both share the following beliefs about the nature of knowing and reality. Positivism emerged as a philosophical paradigm in the 19th century with Auguste Comtes rejection of metaphysics and his assertion that only scientific knowledge can reveal the truth about reality. The positivist paradigm asserts that real events can be observed empirically and explained with logical analysis. The criterion for evaluating the validity of a scientific theory is whether our knowledge claims (i.e., theory-based predictions) are consistent with the information we are able to obtain using our senses. Positivist research methodology Assumptions and beliefs of the Positivist Paradigm: Realist ontology - assumes that there are real world objects apart from the human knower. In other words, there is an objective reality. Representational epistemology - assumes people can know this reality and use symbols to accurately describe and explain this objective reality. By positing a reality separate from our knowledge of it (separation of subject and object), the positivist paradigm provides an objective reality against which researchers can compare their claims and ascertain truth. Prediction and control - assumes that there are general patterns of cause and effect that can be used as a basis for predicting and controlling natural phenomenon. The goal is to discover these patterns. Empirical verification - assumes that we can rely on our perceptions of the world to provide us with accurate data. Research has been assumed to be value-free; if strict methodological protocol is followed, research will be free of subjective bias and objectivity will be achieved.

Phenomenological research is to illuminate the specific and identify phenomena and how they are perceived in certain situation. Phenomenological methods are particularly effective at bringing to the fore the experiences and perceptions of individuals from their own perspectives, and therefore at challenging structural or normative assumptions. Adding an interpretive dimension to phenomenological research, enabling it to be used as the basis for practical theory, allows it to inform, support or challenge policy and action. Phenomenological studies make detailed comments about individual situations which do not lend themselves to direct generalization in the same way which is sometimes claimed for survey research. The development of general theories (i.e. which apply to situations beyond the participants or cases which have been studied) from phenomenological findings needs to be done transparently if it is to have validity; in particular, the reader should be able to work through from the findings to the theories and see how the researcher has arrived at his or her interpretations.