Positivism and Interpretivism in Education - Coursework Example

1 POSITIVISM AND INTERPRETIVISM IN EDUCATION AS RESEARCH PARADIGMS AND THEIR METHODS In the book The Knowledge Deficit, the author contends that there is a serious problem in world educational system and that there is an “academic gap between racial and ethnic groups” (Hirsch 2007, p.xi). Today’s educators, he claimed, have failed to imprint on the minds of the youth, the importance of ideas and knowledge and have neglected to impart to each student the broad knowledge that would make them intellectually competent and make them academic achievers. Children’s acquisition of knowledge is painstakingly slow that even access to computers proves useless to elevate children to a higher rung of academic level. A shake-up in the educational system is badly needed as there is an alarming report that employers now often need to rely on immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe to do the math that our own high school graduates cannot do. We score low among developed nations in international comparisons of science, math and reading” (Hirsch 2007, p.1). The phenomenon of outsourcing has even brought the educational system to the reality that talents and degree of knowledge can even be better elsewhere. This certainly makes the educators contemplate on the tragic failings of the country’s own educational system. It might be concluded that the nation’s educators are 2 basically erroneous in their concepts about education and a research on the matter has to be undertaken to stem the tide of this crippling educational crisis. There was once a prevailing attitude that educational research is useless and impractical. But that has changed through the years as “teaching methods and curriculum policies are now being scrutinised for evidence based research” (Rainwater 2007, p.1). The sorry state of education today has compelled educators to face the reality that old-age methods of education might no longer be operative in the education of students belonging to the high-technology and modernised society of the 2000’s. There is so much empirical knowledge available today and there is a propagation of a domino effect in an expanded knowledge base which makes research ripe and propitious. Even today’s tutors are so willing to cooperate and provide raw data for researchers. And most of them feel that such research can also impact on their growth and competence as educators and bring self-actualisation to them as professionals (Katz and Coleman 2001). Even research is no longer confined to universities or the education departments of governments but it is presently being outsourced to “public companies that market to both public and private sectors” (Rainwater 2007, p.1). All these research entities have it so easy today as they can source their inputs not only from cooperative teachers but also administrators, 3 parents and even the pupils themselves. But such teachers must be wary that they do not violate ethical standards and that they must observe precision. All their findings are subject to verification and approval as to the techniques used and content. “The review of literature will pave the way so that new opinions and different styles of thoughts can improve on the original work (Rainwater 2007, p.2). From the literature review, we distill so many kinds of educational research, the most common being empirical research, which pertains to “the systematic search for data by using the senses” (Swann and Pratt 2003, p.168). There is also philosophical research which “explores assumptions about the nature of learning which underlie the practices of students, teachers and researchers, and that are implicit in the organisation of teaching and the conduct of educational research”. Psychological research meanwhile, tackles the study of how individuals and students as a class “behave as would-be learners” (Swann and Pratt 2003, p.13). There is also what is termed as scientific research which is another name for positivism despite the fact that so many scientists are not positivists. Many educators rise up against the use of positivism in educational research mainly because the methodology that is ought to be utilised should be one that pertains to social or natural contemporary science and this cannot be positivism. In other words, 4 scientific pursuit on positivism is incongruous to the study of social affairs, which is what education is all about. The positivists meanwhile, argue that one of the main objectives of educational research is the production of knowledge, which happens to be testable conjectures which when successfully tested can become formulated concepts about learning, educational organisation and methods of teaching. Thus, they belie the claim that there is no connection between positivism or scientific research and the social sciences. In fact, “positivism is traditionally equated with science and is the approach predominantly used in the natural sciences” and “that this model of approach was used in the social sciences (Marlow 1997, p.8). It is also claimed that the reason that many students are performing below par in math and the sciences is because many educators in the past refuse to embrace scientific research as one of the paradigms to which education research is to be conducted. It is potentially a loss for educational research because adult learners are motivated to learn and will readily broaden their knowledge if they can see a connection between scientific research and their personal experiences and values and when they can perceive that the scientific research is “relevant to their needs” (NWABR.Org 2004, p.12). 5 If there is a scientific research, which model happens to be positivism, there is also an alternative to positivism and this is designated as interpretivism or constructivism or antipositivism (Tones and Green 2004, p.310). Positivism and Interpretivism, Defined Positivism is defined as “a philosophical system founded by August Comte, which is concerned with positive facts and phenomena, and excluding speculation upon ultimate causes or origin” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006). It “recognises only non-metaphysical facts and observable phenomena and so is closely related to rationalism, empiricism and objectivity” (Fellows 2003, p.18). In other words, positivism can only confine itself with empirical knowledge or the data of experience on natural phenomena and certainly excludes a priori or metaphysical speculations (Encyclopedia Brittanica). Positivism also holds the view that “all true knowledge is scientific and that all things are ultimately measurable” (Bullock & Trombley 199, p.669). Positivism is also sometimes dubbed as “scientistic ideology” wherein progress can only be attained through scientific means such as scientific research and wherein knowledge can be secured exclusively through material, physical and natural paradigms. 6 In utter contravention to the idea of positivism is that of interpretivism. It is called antipositivism precisely because it is opposite to that. In ontology, interpretivism is defined as a “philosophical system that treats of all knowledge as a matter of interpretation” (Wikipedia) i.e the universe is interpreted through the mind. Here, “human experience is a process of interpretation rather than sensory reception and apprehension of the external, material world” (Geocities 2007) and when the education researcher uses interpretivism as a paradigm, he enters the everyday social world by observing all the phenomena and tries to grasp their socially constructed meanings and “then reconstructs these meanings in a social scientific language” (Geocities 2007). In interpretivism, the researcher tries to extract motives, reasons and intentions from phenomena. Education Research Paradigms and Methodologies Before settling the issue of which is the better paradigm to use, positivism or interpretivism, we have to deal with the problem that has been bogging down the education researchers. First in the list is the research problem that involves the dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research methodology. “Despite considerable literature to support the use of mixed methods” (Mackenzie & Knipe 2006, p.1), there persists this dilemma of when 7 to use qualitative methods and which instance should the quantitative approach be employed (Merton & Kendall 1946, p.556). Researcher Howe avowed that he has found the solution to the problem and this is to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods. Howe calls his theory the “alternative compatibility thesis” which affirms “the view that a thoroughgoing integration of quantitative and qualitative methods is advisable and involves no epistemological incoherence’ (Howe 2003, p.29). But this is still rejected by many on account of the fact that quantitative methods fall within the domain of scientific research whereas qualitative methods are associated with non-scientific research (Swann & Pratt 2003, p.90). Another problem of the researcher is how to explain what process he utilises to undertake his research project and what is the “theoretical framework underpinning”his research (Mackenzie & Knipe 2006, p.1). To solve this dilemma, we must first understand the different research paradigms and then we analyse the methodology to be used vis-à-vis the research paradigm. But Mackenzie and Knipe assert that “research paradigm and methodology work together to form a research study”. Mackenzie and Knipe listed several kinds of paradigms but before we delve into that , we must clear certain terms like what a paradigm is and what really is a research methodology. 8 Research methodology is defined as the “general approaches to studying research methods (Silverman 2001). Research methodology therefore, embraces the theoretical frameworks and ideas “in which approaches and methods are situated: they provide the rationale and justification for the methods that are selected and the ways in which they are used “ (Stierer & Antoniou 2004, p.21). It must be stressed that the objective of methodology is to make the researcher understand the process of the research and not merely the results of scientific inquiry. In simpler terms, a methodology is a framework that provides guidelines about how research is done “ (Taylor 1996, p.74). A paradigm, on the other hand, is a “set of beliefs” that deals with ultimates and first principles”. It thus “presents a world-view that defines for its holder the nature of the world, the individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships in that world” (Burgess 2006, p.54). This world-view tells the researcher “what is important, what is legitimate, what is reasonable (Patton 1990, p.37) and then it is transformed into a research language that shows how the research topic can be elucidated and analysed (Taylor 1996, p.74). It has also been accepted that in order to have a research study that is fair and effective, the ideal thing is to set “a research methodology within a suitable research paradigm that clearly communicates the assumptions pertinent to that research paradigm” (Khosrou-Pour 2006, p. 15). 9 The first step in an education research is the selection of a theoretical framework or paradigm. The different literature available is replete with theoretical paradigms, the most common being positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, constructivism, transformativism, critical and emancipatory. But for the purpose of this paper, we only limit ourselves to positivism and its opposite, interpretivism. Comparison Between Positivism and Interpretivism There are so many differences that we can think about between positivism and interpretivism. The most obvious is that while positivism holds the view that observable facts can be measured and are thus quantitative in character, interpretivism is qualitative and is indefinite and varies from individual to individual depending on the researcher’s education and upbringing. Thus, truth and reality are social constructs and constructed by the researcher who is making the observations. Positivism is scientific in nature and requires objectivity. Thus researcher must exclude his personal insights, views, biases and intutitions as what really matters is that which is observed and scientifically measured. In interpretivism, the researcher observes the facts and the phenomena and instead of making measurements, qualitatively interprets. As such his personal knowledge, his biases, his apprehensions and his personal discernment come to the picture and color his judgment (Fellows& Liu 2003, p.18). 10 Because positivism holds that what must be utilised are quantitative statistical methods and thus leaves virtually no space for doubt, therefore this research should “take the form of testing hypotheses against empirical data”. In opposition to this theory, interpretivism disputes that there should be no absolute facts and the room is left open for several possible interpretations and meanings. The rationale behind it is that situations vary and people are different from each other, so much so that reality becomes “dependent on the intersubjectivity between people” (Burgess 2006, p. 55). In positivism, the researcher searches for the right research methodology so that he may attain the knowledge that he is looking for which is merely out there. Thus, the positivist considers research as a tool or instrument for ascertaining knowledge. In interpretivism, knowledge is not just out there but instead, it is socially created. The interpretivist looks at research not as an instrument but as a chance “to interpret and understand the meanings that were operating within the group being researched”. What is important to the interpretivist is not the “observable social actions of individuals but rather the subjective meanings attached to such actions” (Taylor 1996, p. 75). On the basis of ontology, positivism views the researcher as an entity separate from the reality that is being observed. Thus the subject and the object are deemed to be two entities distinct and separate from each other. The reverse is the view maintained by interpretivism which sustains the belief that the researcher and the reality under study by him are 11 inseparable (Weber 2004, p.v). The rationale behind this is the life-world concept conceived by Husserl which propounds that the life-world has traits that are simultaneously subjective and objective. And this is because “our perceptions about the world are inextricably bound to a stream of experiences we have had throughout our lives” (Husserl 1970, p.5). As we have previously hinted at, positivism holds the quantitative and fact dogma while interpretivism sustains the qualitative and value dogma. The positivist’s fact dogma carries with it concepts of “rationality, science, means, cognition, objectivity and truth” while the interpretivist’s value dogma which bears the concepts of “irrationality, politics, ends, interests, subjectivity and power” (Howe 2003, p.2). There is also a marked difference between these two paradigms on the basis of epistemology . In positivism, the researcher attempts to absorb “knowledge of a reality that exists beyond the human mind” and gives credence to the position that “human experience of the world reflects an objective, independent reality and that this reality provides the foundation for human knowledge”. In interpretivism, the researcher intentionally collects all his experiences, his culture, aspirations and objectives and connects these to the knowledge he is accumulating from his research. It can therefore be said that “knowledge is built through social construction of the world” (Weber 2004, p.vi). A difference between the 2 paradigms may also be culled from the intention of both. The positivist’s intention is to “test-theory through observation and measurement in order to predict and control forces that surround us’ (O’Leary 2004, p. 5). The interpretivist’s aim, on the other 12 hand, is to comprehend the “world of human experience” (Cohen & Manion 1994, p.36). Thus, because each researcher has experiences unique to himself, therefore the resultant interpretations are variable. As to the use of research methods, both also have discrepant dissimilarities. While positivists rely on surveys, laboratory experiments and field studies, interpretivists prefer to use hermeneutics, ethnographic and ethnomethodologiccal studies as well as case studies. Another disparity between the two concepts is the assumption that each take. In positivism, it is one where the “reality has an objective existence that is outside and independent of the language and conceptual categories used to describe and analyse it. In interpretivism, it is one “that reason and irrationality are constitutive of actors and the societies in which they are embedded” (Elman 2001, p.134). In the realm of analyses, analyses of phenomena by interpretive methods are considered by many as “more democratic in character than analyses informed by methodological positivism” because “they accord the status of expertise to local knowledge by situational actors, not just to the technical expertise of researchers”(Yanow & Schwartz-Shea 2006, p.22). Positivists are also convinced of the idea “that a statement made by a researcher is true when it has a one-to-one mapping to the reality that exists beyond the human mind”. This is called the correspondence theory of truth. The interpretivists, meanwhile, conforms to the idea of truth “whereby a researcher’s initial interpretation of some phenomenon conforms to the meaning given to the phenomenon through the researcher’s lived experience of it” (Weber 2004, p.p.viii). 13 Again there are differences in the subject matter of reliability. In positivism, there is the belief that research results are only reliable when they can be reproduced either by the researcher himself or other researchers. The known sources of unreliability are errors in the measurement, prejudices of the writer himself, research process inconsistencies and “differences in the context in which the result was conducted. Meanwhile, in interpretivism, the researchers recognise and address implications of their subjectivity and they affirm that their research would only be reliable when they”demonstrate interpretive awareness” (Weber 2004, p.ix). Conclusion The first part of this paper dealt with the importance of an education research. Then this paper tackled the fundamentals of making a proper education research i.e the setting up of methodologies and paradigms and finally it analysed positivism and interpretivism and compared both paradigms. As to the issue of which is the better paradigm, that has to be thrown to the readers. But this paper cannot help it but take the side of Howe who was able to combine both positivism and interpretivism because in reality both have equal importance and use to education. While laboratory experiments, surveys and field studies that involve quantitative data are extremely important to map out educational plans that would further improve the educational system, case studies and other qualitative means to ferret out the weaknesses of the present educational system are also equally needed. Thus, the best position is to be able to take the best of both worlds, so to speak. 14 REFERENCES Bullock,A & Trombley,S 1999, , Positivism, The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Harper Collins, London, UK. Burgess, H 2006, Achieving your doctorate in education. Pine Forge Press. Cohen, L & Manion, L 1994 Research methods in education ,4th ed., Routledge, London, UK. Elman, C 2001, Bridges and boundaries: historians, political scientists and the study of international relation, MIT Press. Encyclopedia Brittanica. Fellows, R & Liu, A 2003, Research methods for construction, Blackwell Publishing. Geocities 2007, Interpretivism. http://uk.geocities.com/balihar_sanghera/carcinterpretivism slides.html. Hirsch, ED 2007, The knowledge deficit:closing the shocking education gap for American Children, Houghton Miflin Books Howe, KR 2003, Closing methodological divides:toward democratic educational research, Springer Books. Husserl, E 2007, The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Ill. Katz, E & Coleman, M 2001, The growing importance of research at academic colleges of education in Israel, Journal:Education and Training, vol. 43, issue 2. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid. 15 Khosrow-Pour 2006, Emerging trends and challenges in information, Idea Group Incorporated. Mackenzie, N & Knipe, S 2006, Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in educational research, Vol. 16, 2006. http;//www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html. Marlow, C 1997, Research methods for generalist social work, Brooks/Cole Publishing, University of Michigan. NWABR.Org 2004, Sharing the importance of research, Northwestern Association for Biomedical Research and the University of Washington. http://www.nwabr.org/education/Speaker_Training/Speaker_Workshop_Booklet_2004.pdf. Merton, J & Kendall, A 1946, The focused interview, The American Journal of Sociology, 51,6, 541-557. O’Leary, Z 2004, The essential guide to doing research, SAGE, London, UK. Patton, M 1990, Qualitative evaluation and research method, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Rainwater, D 2007, The importance of research in evaluating education, AC Associated Content. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/188769/the_importance_of_ Research_in_evaluating.html. Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006, Random House, Inc. 16 Silverman, D 2001, Interpreting qualitative data, 2nd ed., SAGE, London, UK. Swann, JU & Pratt, J 2003, Educational research in practice:making sense of methodology, Continuum International Publishing Group. Stierer, B & Antoniou, M 1985, Teaching in higher education, Journal of Research in Reading, Vol.8, no. 1, pp.21-31, February 1985. Tones, K & Green, J 2004, Health Promotion:planning and strategies, SAGE, London,UK. Taylor, P 1996, Researching drama and arts education:paradigms and possibilities, Routledge. Weber, R 2004, The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretation: a personal view, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, no. 1, March 2004. Yanow, D & Schwartz_Shea 2006, Interpretation and method :empirical research methods, ME Sharpe. Read More