Before we go into discussing Positivism v.s. Postpositivism we need to define the meaning of positivism. Simply put, positivism refers to an evidence-based reality that can be mathematically interpreted. However, scientists have come to the realisation that all observation, including objective reality, is fallible which led to the postpositivist paradigm.
Some believe that if something cannot be mathematically verified then it falls outside of an objective reality. Positivist and post-positivist designs are on a continuum between the quantitative and qualitative paradigms (paradigm can be described as a worldview that underlies theory). Positivism is still the dominant quantitative paradigm (Hunter, & Leahey, 2008), but there seems to be a shift towards post-positivist thinking.
Post-positivism is also known as methodological pluralism (Morris, McNaughton, Mullins & Osmond, 2009). According to Krauss (2005), the paradigm the researcher selects determines the research methodology.
The post-positivist paradigm evolved from the positivist paradigm. It is concerned with the subjectivity of reality and moves away from the purely objective stance adopted by the logical positivists (Ryan, 2006).
There are three paradigmatic determinants:
• ontology – the reality studied;
• the epistemology – the knowledge of the reality,
• and lastly, the methodology or strategy used to seek the truth.
The post-positivist perspective is that not everything is completely knowable (Krauss, 2005).
According to Waismann (2011), positivist generalisations are based on ‘real’ causes which are perceived as the true source of behaviour and are based on unchangeable, sound foundations.
This true reality is attainable and can be identified and measured. Positivism sets out to predict and control reality. It strongly focuses on the deterministic view of cause and effect (causality) which derives from deductive reasoning that research is guided by theory (Kinsler, 2011).
When the theory does not correspond to reality, it is revised to better predict outcomes. This causation should only be based on empirical evidence (the core of empiricism is measurement and observation) on how reality is perceived or understood (Waismann, 2011). Also called the natural sciences model, as positivism originated from natural sciences, this knowledge is measured against empirical evidence (Goodwin, 2005).
Here is part 2: Positivism v.s. Postpositivism | Perspectives, where we will discuss various positivist perspectives.
We would love to hear from you.
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org or follow this link to our contact form.
References (Part 1-3)
Adèr, H. J., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Hand, D. J. (2008). Advising on research methods: a consultant’s companion. Huizen: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
Bornmann, L. (2008). Scientiﬁc Peer Review: An analysis of the peer review process from the perspective of sociology of science theories. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 6 (2).
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
DiNardo, J. (2008). Natural experiments and quasi-natural experiments. In S. N. Durlauf & L.E, Blume. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications.
Goodwin, C. J. (2005). Research in psychology: Methods and design. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42 (2).
Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. American Sociologist, 39, 290–306.
Kinsler, P. (2011). How to be causal. Eur. J. Phy,32 (6),1687.
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758-770. Retrieved, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-4/krauss.pdf.
Macionis, J. (2011). Sociology Canada: Pearson Education.
Morris, J., McNaughton, D., Mullins, R., & Osmond, J. (2009). Post-positivist epistemology (unpublished paper). Victoria: University of Victoria.
Murzi, M. (2007). Logical Positivism, The new encyclopedia of unbelief, Tom Flynn (ed.). Austin: Prometheus Books.
O’Leary, Z. (2009). The essential guide to doing your research project. London: Sage publications.
Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Retrieved from: http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/Triangulation.pdf.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach, (7th ed.). SAGE.
Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (Eds). (2006). Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Cape Town: UCT.
Waismann, F. (2011) Causality and logical positivism. In Humanities, Social Science and Law. Resource Type: Springer eBooks.