Positivism vs Interpretivism

Question 1

Reliability…

Answer 1

The reliability of the data we collect must, of course, be an important consideration, since if the data we use is not reliable, then the conclusions we draw on the basis of such data are going to be fairly useless. For example, if I attempt to draw conclusions about the state of education in Britain on the basis of a couple of interviews I conducted down the pub with whoever happened to be present at the time, it’s probable that such data is not likely to be very reliable as a guide to what is really happening in the educational system.

Question 2

3 key concerns…

Answer 2

1) The consistency of the data collected. Will the same question asked of the same person in similar circumstances, produce the same answer?

2) The precision (or lack of) with which it is collected For example, how systematic is a form of data collection that relies upon asking people questions about something about they may have little direct knowledge?

3) The repeatability of the data collection method For example, if another sociologist attempted to repeat my research “down the pub”, would similar results be achieved?

Question 3

Validity…

Answer 3

Data is only useful if it actually measures what it claims to be measuring and, in this respect, the concept of validity refers to the extent to which the data we collect gives a true measurement / description of “social reality”.

Example: Unemployment statistics - can be reasonably certain that such statistics are collected reliably, month-on-month, we also need to know how accurate (or “valid”) a picture of unemployment in our society they represent.

For example, if we wanted to compare levels / rates of unemployment in our society between today and twenty years ago, could we use government statistics for this purpose?

Although such statistics are collected reliably, we need to understand how definitions of what constitutes “unemployment” may have changed over time - and, in this respect, since the definition has changed about 25 times over the past fifteen years, it follows that such statistics are not valid for purposes of comparison (we are not, in technical terms, “comparing like with like”).

Additionally, since such statistics do not use a definition of “unemployment“ that involves counting everyone who wants to find a job, but can’t, it’s unlikely that they represent a true or valid picture of unemployment in Britain… As should be clear, the concepts of reliability and validity go hand-in-hand.

Question 4

Validity vs reliability…

Answer 4

If data is reliable but not valid, then it may have limited use. We can make general statements about the world, but such statements may not actually apply to any one social group (such as the “unemployed”).

If data is valid, but not reliable, we may not be able to use it to make general statements about the world (for example, we may be able to understand something about one group of unemployed people that doesn’t necessarily apply to all unemployed people).

Finally, therefore, a general rule to follow whenever you are presented with data to analyse / interpret (whether it be data collected from primary sources such as interviews, experiments, observation and the like, or secondary sources such as novels, Official Statistics and so froth), is that you should always seek to apply the concepts of reliability and validity to the data.

Question 5

Positivism…

Answer 5

Positivists believe that science can explain the universe.

They use hypo-deductive reasoning and falsification to test their beliefs. This is when scientists have a theory and invite others to prove them wrong. It is based on the concept that nothing can be proven 100% true but theories can be proven false.

Question 6

Hypothetico-deductive methods…

Answer 6

The hypothetico-deductive method is an approach to research that begins with a theory about how things work and derives testable hypotheses from it. It is a form of deductive reasoning in that it begins with general principles, assumptions, and ideas, and works from them to more particular statements about what world actually looks like and how it works.

The hypotheses are then tested by gathering and analysing data and the theory is then either supported or refuted by the results.

Question 7

Proof for falsification…

Answer 7

For example, I would never be able to prove that I am going to live forever but others could quite easily prove I won’t by killing me.

It is reasoned that if many fail to prove a theory wrong it has an increased likelihood of being correct/true but we will never be 100% sure. According to positivists for theories to be scientific they must be testable/falsifiable.

Question 8

Positivists…

Answer 8

Positivists believe that a scientifically backed theory is far more valid than one that is not backed up with quality evidence.

Positivists see the world as being full of concrete testable realities. Positivists use quantitative methods to support their theories.

Consider Durkheim’s theory of suicide.

Question 9

Positivists and quantitative methods…

Answer 9

Quantitative methods such as social surveys, structured questionnaires and official statistics because these have good reliability and representativeness.

Positivists see society as shaping the individual and believe that ‘social facts’ shape individual action.

The positivist tradition stresses the importance of doing quantitative research such as large scale surveys in order to get an overview of society as a whole and to uncover social trends, such as the relationship between educational achievement and social class. This type of sociology is more interested in trends and patterns rather than individuals.

It seeks correlations between two phenomena.

Question 10

Comte…

Answer 10

Comte is not only the founder of Positivism but the first to specifically introduce the term, sociology to the social world and push for it to be deemed as a science.

He fought to determine the nature of human society and the laws and principles underlying its growth and development. He also attempt to discover the most effective methodology to study the social world.

He said that the social phenomena and questions can be studied and should be studied as the natural sciences are.

Question 11

Some key principles…

Answer 11

We should study the Social world in the same way as we study the natural sciences.

By using the natural scientific method we can uncover the laws that govern societies and social behaviour just as scientists have discovered the laws that govern the physical world.

Scientific research should reveal objective truths about the causes of social action.

Because positivists want to uncover the general laws that shape human behaviour, they are interested in looking at society as a whole.

Researcher’s should remain relatively detached from the research process.

Question 12

Durkheim…

Answer 12

Durkheim took Comte’s work edited it but kept the scientific methods.

Durkheim believed the primary means of researching society should be the Comparative Method which involves comparing groups and looking for correlations or relationships between 2 or more variables.

Question 13

Durkheim’s study of suicide…

Answer 13

Durkheim chose to study suicide because he thought that if he could prove that suicide, a very personal act, could be explained through social factors, then surely any action could be examined in such a way.

Durkheim’s method consisted of comparing the incidence of various social factors with number of cases of suicide.

Question 14

Durkheim’s analysis…

Answer 14

Durkheim was a close analysis of the available official statistics, which showed that rates of suicide varied:

• From one country to another – countries experiencing rapid social change had higher suicide rates.
• Between different social groups – The divorced had higher suicide rates than the married.
• Between different religious groups – Protestants had higher suicide rates than Catholics.

Question 15

Durkheim’s findings…

Answer 15

Durkheim noted that these rates were relatively stable over time for each group. The rates may have gone up or down, but the rates remained stable relative to each other. Durkheim theorised that if suicide was an entirely individual matter, untouched by the influence of social factors, it would be an astonishing coincidence if these statistical patterns remained so constant over a long period of time. Entirely individual decisions should lead to a random pattern.

Question 16

Social facts…

Answer 16

Durkheim argued that social trends are ‘social facts’ – they are real phenomena which exist independently of the individuals who make them up.

He claimed that by if sociology limited itself to the study of social facts it could be more objective.

He argued that these facts constrain individuals and help us to make predictions about the way societies change and evolve.

Question 17

Example…

Answer 17

A perfect example of this is the census, the census is given out every 10 years. And records data such as well-ness, religion and the poverty line.

This is a really useful tool for sociologists to find trends and correlations.

Question 18

Interpretivists…

Answer 18

Are very sceptical with regard to the positivists ‘scientific’ claims.

They see the world as mainly a socially constructed place. By this they mean that reality as we understand it only exists because of agreed shared concepts. Knowledge itself is whatever we agree it to be.

For example most people would recognize a chair as something useful to sit on, but if you took it to a tribe who had been isolated from the rest of the world and were a very aggressive group they may view it as a shield with spikes on it.

Context is therefore a hugely important aspect of knowledge itself, and so context is really important when we are trying to understand/interpret a situation. Interpretivists don’t think that scientific methodology is useful to the study of human interactions or sociology. They see it as not valid because it often removes the context or interferes in some way with the subject matter.

Interpretivists use qualitative research techniques such as ethnographic techniques for example observations and unstructured interviews.

Question 19

Interpretivist approach to social research…

Answer 19

An Interpretivist approach to social research would be much more qualitative, using methods such as unstructured interviews or participant observation.

Interpretivists, or anti-positivists argue that individuals are not just puppets who react to external social forces as Positivists believe.

According to Interpretivists individuals are intricate and complex and different people experience and understand the same ‘objective reality’ in very different ways and have their own, often very different, reasons for acting in the world, thus scientific methods are not appropriate.

Question 20

Social action theory…

Answer 20

Intepretivist research methods derive from ‘social action theory‘.

Intereptivists actually criticise ‘scientific sociology’ (Positivism) because many of the statistics it relies on are themselves socially constructed.

Interpretivists argue that in order to understand human action we need to achieve ‘Verstehen‘, or empathetic understanding – we need to see the world through the eyes of the actors doing the acting.

Question 21

Qualitative research…

Answer 21

Qualitative research methods tend to be favoured by Interpretivists as they allow respondents to speak for themselves, and should thus yield valid data.

However, because qualitative methods tend to involve the researcher getting more involved with the respondents, there is a risk that the subjective views of the researcher could interfere with the results, which could compromise both the validity and reliability of such methods.

Qualitative research methods also tend to be time consuming and so it can be difficult to them with large samples of people.