1 POSITIVISM VERSUS INTERPRETIVISM

1.1 POSITIVISM
This is a school of thought which prefers the quantitative methods like social surveys,
questionnaires, official statistics and other relevant techniques pertaining to quantitative data.
They highly stress on the quantitative research for having the overview of the society in order
to unveil social trends which shape the personality of a member of a society. The believers of
this school of thought state that society shapes individuals and their actions. Under this method
sociologists tend to gauge relationships or correlation coefficient between two or more than
two variables. It also states that the data gained from observation is trustworthy and here the
role of researcher gets limited to the data collection and interpretation not beyond than that. It
basically includes the development of hypothesis through the existing theory which than gets
evaluated through the hypothesis testing procedures.

1.1.1 Principles
1. There are no differences across sciences in terms of logical inquiry
2. The main aim of the research should be to predict and explain a particular given
phenomenon
3. The research must be able to be observed empirically through senses of human kind.
The hypothesis which is going to be tested should be built through the inductive
reasoning mechanism
4. The research process should get effected from the biasness based on common sense,
because science is not same as the human senses
5. The logic should be the only way to judge the science and it must be value free

1.2 INTERPRETIVISM
Conversely, the supporters of Interpretivist method rely on qualitative techniques; mainly,
participant observation and unstructured interviews. They defend their school of thought by
stating that individuals do not react to external forces in the society in the way the Positivists
believe. Besides, they also believe that individuals tend to be different from each other in terms
of giving meaning to their external environment. They tend to elaborate and perceive the same
reality in a very different way, thus by using scientific method here may not yield appropriate
results. The believers of this thought also argue that for understanding the human action in true
spirit requires the observer to look the world through the eyes of individual doing the action,
which is not the case in aforementioned approach. It also emphasizes that the researcher must
consider and appreciate the differences which exist in individuals. Main purpose of this
approach remains the extraction of meaning so that they employ different methods to depict
the various distinguishing aspects of an issue.

1.2.1 Principles
1. The basic principles associated with Hermeneutic circle
2. The rule of contextualization
3. The researcher and subjects’ interaction principle
4. The generalization and the obstruction principle
5. The dialogical reasoning principle
6. The multiple interpretation principle
7. The suspicion principle

2 FACTORS DISTINGUISHING POSITIVISM FROM INTERPRETIVISM

2.1 SHOULD THE METHOD OF RESEARCH BE SCIENTIFIC

According to the positivists, sociology is a science and the study of the society should be carried
out in the same way as the natural world is. They emphasize that the data collected should be
objective and the information which is intending to be gathered should be purely based on
social facts, means they stress that the research must get started from the hypothesis.

On the other hand, interpretivists stress that society should not be attributed as a science. They
accentuate on the philosophy that the social world tends to differ from the natural world, hence
using scientific approach in this case may not prove fruitful.

2.2 TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED

Positivists say that the data should be measurable and statistical as well. This means that data
must be quantitative in order to perform trend and correlation analysis on it. They believe that
this is the best way to observe human behavior rather than going for qualitative techniques.

Conversely, interpretivists believe that the data must be detailed and in qualitative form for the
in depth understanding of a given scenario. This is one of the major characteristics
differentiating both approaches under study.
2.3 THE SCALE TO BE USED IN RESEARCH
The positivist emphasizes that for understanding the human behavior and trend the correlation
should be performed by using quantitative observations. And apart from this, the size of the
sample should also be large possible in order to have better representation of the society.

In contrast, the supporters of interpretivism rely on small sample size, they believe that the
smaller sample enables the researcher to gather more detailed data about the sample, while
large sample size makes it somewhat difficult to collect detailed data about such a huge sample.
And they also believe that the findings of the research should be subjective because every
person due to its varying personality attributes has different experience of the society and he
also elaborates and perceives every interaction differently in his society as compared to the rest
of his fellow members.

2.4 IMPORTANCE OF VALIDITY VS RELIABILITY

Positivists stress on the reliability more, because if it gets repeated by another researcher the
conclusion would be the same. And this pattern goes parallel with the scientific research.

On the contrary, the interpretivist gives more weight to the validity. They consider it to be
significant characteristic of a research. They also believe that validity can only be realized
through qualitative data as it gives an in depth understanding of a given phenomenon.

2.5 NATURE OF DATA

As the positivists attribute sociology as a science, hence they say that the research process must
not get influenced from the one doing it, and that variable must be controlled so they rely more
on objective approach as it remains in compliance with the scientific approach.

Moreover, the interpretivists believe that the society and individual behavior are unpredictable,
hence this variable cannot be controlled so for inclusion of this variable the research must be
subjective.

2.6 GENERAL FOCUS

The positivists believe that the purpose of research is to unveil the laws and the norms that
govern an individual’s behavior. Just like the scientists, who strive to uncover the patterns that
govern the physical world around them, same as this research attempts to unveil those patterns
which regulate the day to day lives of human beings.
On the other hand, the believers of second school of thought stress that the main aim of research
tends to get insight into the life patterns of the respondents, so the purpose remains to
understand why they behave in a particular way. So, in order to achieve this objective, they
should utilize the non-scientific methods of research to see the world through the eyes of the
respondent.

3 SUPPORTED PARADIGM AND JUSTIFICATION

Though both approaches are quite helpful and adequate in their place for carrying out a research
with positive yields but based on the comparative analysis, I came to the agreement that
Interpretivism is the best paradigm. It basically gives the researcher a great edge to have in
depth understanding of a particular phenomenon. It also remains very valid because the
qualitative nature of data leaves no room for the errors being skipped. So, the researchers
looking for high validity tend to use this approach.

Similarly, this approach is mainly qualitative, so the qualitative research tends to be very open-
ended. This open-ended structure enables the researcher to get very superficial responses and
rational thoughts in gathering data from a person’s emotional response. It is usually the
emotional response which influences an individual’s behavior and drives his decisions. So, this
element remains critically important for a researcher for reaching to a sound conclusion about
a particular phenomenon.

Same as this, the sample size in qualitative researches usually remains very small which not
only minimizes the cost of carrying out a research but also save the time of the researcher by
enabling him to have very prompt decisions based on the findings. The faster results allowed
by this method also prevents unusual delays in executing a project.

Apart from this, here the researcher views the issue from multiples angles which is also called
holistic account. He also can employ number of research related resources in order to identify
the different elements involved in the issue. Here also researchers try to unveil the complex
factors in the interaction, by making their findings further strong and valid.

Likewise, it can be of prominent value in business related studies because through its in-depth
nature of understanding the researchers can study the cross-cultural differences, factors
impeding leadership, ethics related issues and leadership. Here the data which tends to be used
for the future remains associated with high level of validity because data here is of primary
nature. Moreover, if someone in his dissertation goes for this approach, the level of depth of
the understanding and discussion here depends on the level of the studies of the researcher, he
can go into deepest utmost possible if he wished so.

In addition to this, it normally becomes difficult to analyze a data which is obtained from
individual sources because many of the individuals subconsciously answer wrong this desire
to please others undermines the accuracy of the data which also suppresses the creativity of an
individual. On the other hand, this method being emphatic on qualitative method makes it
possible to encourage the creativity of the respondents, by giving people free hand to express
themselves with authenticity.

Last but not least, this approach offers many opportunities for gathering important clues about
any particular subject in spite of being limited, self-confined and self-fulfilling perspective.
Instead it offers the approach in which if the data which is available does not seem to be
providing good results, the research can be shifted to a new direction, hence this approach by
offering multiple opportunities remains superior, while this is not possible in the case of
positivism.

4 CONCLUSION

There are number of advantages and disadvantages, making each of the methods unique in their
own place. But the interpretivism seems to be quite better than the positivism. Because its
advantages exceed its disadvantages. This approach especially seems to be fruitful in business
related researches and studies. Moreover, Positivism approach has number of shortcomings
which rank it to be less attractive. First and foremost, it relies on experience as a major source
knowledge. While there are many important concepts which are not based on the experience,
such as; time, space and cause. Secondly, this approach also perceives that the all processes are
variations of relationships between individuals. Last but not least, the adaptation of positivism
can be criticized, if used in business studies on the grounds of very high reliance on status quo.
The results of this method are only descriptive, which makes them to be deficient of insight
into the in-depth understanding of the issues.

To sum up, based on the above discussion, the conclusion can be drawn that the interpretivism
ranks higher than the positivism, because of its significantly profound benefits and more weight
on validity of data along with validity of the findings.
5 REFERENCES

https://revisesociology.com/2015/05/18/positivism-interpretivism-sociology/

http://www.markedbyteachers.com/gcse/sociology/evaluation-of-the-difference-between-
positivist-and-interpretivist-methodologies.html

https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/7486/A-Level/Sociology/What-is-the-difference-
between-Positivist-and-Interpretivist

https://vittana.org/23-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-qualitative-research

https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/positivism/

https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/positivism/