Evaluation of the difference between Positivist and Interpretivist methodologies

Authors Avatar

In what ways and to what extent are the positivist and interpretive approaches to  sociological research different?

The sociological ideals followed by the positivist are the antithesis of those chosen by the interpretivist.  The positivist expects to always find that, as Condorcet described, “everywhere one must reach the same results with the same methods for the truth is one for everybody, because nature is everywhere subject to the same laws” [1].  Whereas for the interpretivist  “reality really is in the eye of the beholder”.[2]

The Positivist standpoint is really that of the early sociologists who tried to attach social laws to humanity in the same way Newton’s experiments gave us the theory of gravity.  As Auguste Comte claimed in 1842, “instead of systems of belief in which the destiny of an individual was in the unintelligible hands of God or rulers, scientific knowledge would make it possible for an individual to understand nature and society, and with this knowledge to determine, in freedom, their own future.”[7]  These newly formed social scientists tried to use statistics and precise measurements to answer the problems of society. Karl Popper saw that a very precise hypothesis must be made, that can be tested and re-tested to “make precise predictions on the basis of the theory.”  However, Popper also stated it would not be possible to produce laws that would always stand true, as there would be the possibility of future falsification.[15]  

 

But, the interpretivist, or phenomenologist, could see that the laws of natural science would be an inappropriate way of studying human behaviour. They, instead study social action to enable an understanding of  verstehen, a term coined by Max Weber.  This can best be done, in the view of the interpretive theorist, by observation of, and interaction with the subject.  This can be seen in Weber’s research into the relationship between the Protestant work ethic and Capitalism.[17]

People having no choice in how they behave because external objective forces cause their behaviour, seems to be the mainstay of the positivist theory, such as when Emile Durkheim tried to prove a causal relationship within the reasons behind suicide by using the official statistics available. His findings were to be argued against by J.D. Douglas, as having taken the statistics too much at face value.  

Join now!

The phenomenologist, on the other hand, argues that human consciousness means  “that we decide what to do in the light of our interpretation of the world around us”.[3]  This is seen in the work of Jean Baechler,  who used case studies to determine “suicidal behaviour as a way of responding to and trying to solve a problem.”[10]

 The Positivist takes the “macro” approach to society.  He studies the institutions within society, such as church, family, and education, to see how they manage “to maintain the equilibrium and consensus.”[5]  G.P. Murdoch used a sample of 250 societies, a typically ...

This is a preview of the whole essay