Positivism and Social Constructionism Theories in Health Studies - Coursework Example

POSITIVISM AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM THEORIES IN HEALTH STUDIES Positivism and Social Constructionism Theories in Health Studies Establishing how knowledge is collected and proven has evolved from creating mere inferences based on simple one-time observations, to the invention of the scientific method, and moving towards accepting the subjective nature of some aspects of knowledge. These modes of knowledge acquisition evolved through the various processes of scientific methods and research, and as such during the course of the development of the scientific field these methods gave rise to two of the well-known methods of information collection: quantitative research (known mostly as the positivist or post-positivist theory/approach) and qualitative research (also known as the social constructivist or social constructionism theory/approach) (Howe, 2009). As the type of research implies, the positivist approach to research puts greater focus on measurable aspects of data collection, using techniques rooted in objectivity and repeatability of tests towards deductive reasoning to solidify any scientific claims (Gilson, 2012). On the other hand, the social constructivism approach in research delves more on the qualitative nature of researches, putting more focus on research aspects that are most-likely affected by social constructs and will have greater reliance on researchers’ critical standpoint regarding the potential impact of the research to a greater number of people (Clarke, 2013). While these two differing disciplines are usually treated separately in other areas of science, in the field of medicine and health studies both positivist and social constructionist approaches have a strong impact on understanding and promoting health and wellness in the population, and while both are regarded as two differing methods of acquiring knowledge, it is possible to allow the collaboration of both efforts to deal with issues concerned with society and population health (Giddings, 2006). Positivism The constant search for the ultimate and universal truths lead to the development of the positivist approach in information and knowledge acquisition, in which it is presumed that all knowledge acquired through the scientific method and have been acquired from constant and highly repeatable methods, done through objectivity and control of variables are deemed infallible and finite (Giddings, 2006; Komives and Dugan, 2010).Producing reliable information without bias, acquiring it through strict approximations, and generated as accurately as possible are also considered main goals of the use of a positivist approach (Kelly and Moore, 2012). Through the use of repeatable tests that produce constant results through measurable data units (i.e. placing importance on numerical data values) to confirm theories or general laws, a positivist approach in research contributes to predictability of events, therefore helping the society to avoid potential hazards or dangers in the future by recognizing familiar signs or signals (Makhene, 2009; Ross, 2012).Such approach on knowledge acquisition contributes greatly to the assimilation of definitive and calculable information, leading towards the generation of universally-accepted truths. Inasmuch as a positivist approach is able to create information that can be tested repeatedly and produce constant results, certain areas of concern arose in how information from positivist approach is applied. For instance, positivism relies on the idea that humans in general can be observed, and therefore contain a definite rate of predictability (Ross, 2012). However, this idea does not take into account how other external factors can affect human objectivity, therefore it can be expected that biases can occur in both the drawing out and interpretation of acquired information, thus contradicting the premises of positivism in general. Also, there has been issues on the relevance or importance of generated information in helping society to advance, implying that any information acquired but has no appropriate applications for human survival has no value for the general population, but simply a waste of human efforts (McDonnell, 2013). As such, the emergence of qualitative research through social constructionism became relevant to support the objective pursuit of knowledge while taking into account how certain aspects of information collation have been defined by societal influences. Social Constructionism The emergence of social constructionism and its evolution towards a qualitative research method arose from inconsistencies observed from trying to prove the infallible nature of information acquire through human observations (Andrews, 2012). This is because acquiring information simply through humanistic efforts does not take into account individual differences caused by factors such as location, culture, space, and time, which then could lead to variability in information interpretation, retention, and processing, later on causing discrepancies in the gathered information despite objectivity in the process (Shiffman, 2009). In addition, because information processing is considerably relies on individual accounts and understanding, it also follows that the social relevance of acquired information are also defined subjectively based on how an individual thinks of the subject (Burr, 2004).By accepting the notion that reality differs for each person, the field of social science was created to find out what influence human thoughts in general, how differences in social and cultural backgrounds affect the perception of reality, and how such differences are addressed in the process of generating universally-accepted truths. As such, the social constructivism approach supports the idea that despite the humanistic ability of obtaining objectivity in knowledge acquisition, what is considered to be “reality” differs from person to person, culture to culture, to differences in social classes, gender, and age, therefore “common sense” or “common reality” are actually defined on an individual or personal basis (Liamputtong, 2010). Positivist and Social Constructivist Theories in Health and Illness Concepts Both the positivist and social constructivist theories have a strong impact on research, even more so in the field of medicine and of supporting the relevance of health and illness to most people. It is also possible to harness the two theories in producing generalised information, both quantitatively and qualitatively by expressing the importance of the quantitative information with respect to the qualitative information, or vice versa (Giddings, 2006). Yet in terms of obtaining the kind of information there will be differences in the nature of the information generated by each approach. For example, a positivist or post-positivist approach will generate quantifiable information, and will therefore be more useful in answering questions focused on finding out numbers, percentages, and the like. Based on these premises,the positivist approach can be used to study epidemiologic rates of diseases by quantifying the information and making generalisations on factors that contribute to the emergence of the disease, thus answering the needs for measurable and definitive information in relation to the healthy population (McKinlay, Marceau, and Piccolo, 2012). However, quantitative data alone cannot be completely useful without subjective interpretation of the results in relation to human health, thus the need to supplement this information with qualitative data (Conrad and Barker, 2010). Whereas positivist approaches generate measurable information, the qualitative nature of the social constructionist approach can provide or support the relevance of the numerical information provided through a positivist/post-positivist approach. This allows the qualitative information to aid in finding possible variation sources during sampling or data gathering, and establishing the social dimensions and cultural meanings of the said information (Petty, Thomson, and Stew, 2012). For example, using the previous epidemiology setting,after generating the numerical data the qualitative research process can thencreate qualitative information such as finding out which members of the population are highly-susceptible. A social constructivist approach can provide implications of the epidemiologic rates to the population (i.e. children are more susceptible than adults, and thus will have higher mortality rates), which in turn can influence the health policies and priorities implemented by authorities in the process of disease prevention and cure (i.e. medicines will be made available for children to prevent disease) (Smith, Mitton and Peacock, 2009). In effect, the results can push health care workers to make additional efforts in patient-centred efforts towards disease prevention and cure, mitigating the effects of the diseases to populations such as paediatric, geriatric, and immune-compromised patients (Lévesque, Hovey, and Bedos, 2013).Thus it is possible to combine both methods in finding reliable medical interventions for the greater population, while at the same time taking into account the social relevance and impact of the acquired information to people who will benefit most from it (Bryant, 2009; Stewart, 2009).As such, it is through human interpretation of the implications of numerical data that can contribute to how increase in epidemiological rates will be interpreted by healthcare workers, and in turn by the general public. Conclusions Various methods of data acquisition and information collation can be used to generate knowledge that can help societies advance or simply survive, both through objective methods using the positivist or post-positivist approach/theory that generates quantifiable or measurable data, and using subjective methods such as the social constructivist approach/theory which creates qualitative data that provides implications of quantifiable data in terms of its relevance to human populations.While both approaches can be tackled separately in other fields of science, it is not the case in health studies since it is important to interpret both qualitative and quantitative information with respect to its impact on human population as a whole. For example, quantitative data generated by a positivist approach should be interpreted using qualitative information from a social constructivist approachin determining whether a disease can have a large impact on certain members of the population or not, otherwise either information will not be usable on its own. Thus, while both theories have their own differences, in terms of usefulness it is important to recognize that both are relevant and even complementary with each other in the process of generating information that will be of benefit to the public’s health and the society’s welfare across time, places and generations. Bibliography Andrews, T., 2012.What is Social Constructionism? - Grounded Theory Review. [Online] Available at: http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/ [Accessed 23 March 2014]. Bryant, T., 2009.An Introduction to Health Policy.Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Burr, V., 2004.Social Constructionism.East Sussex: Routledge. Clarke, A., 2013. The Sociology of Healthcare.2nd ed. East Sussex: Routledge. Conrad, P. and Barker, K. K., 2010.‘The Social Construction of Illness Key Insights and Policy Implications’,Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1 suppl), pp. S67-S79. Giddings, L. S., 2006. ‘Mixed-methods research Positivism dressed in drag?’,Journal of research in nursing, 11(3), pp. 195-203. Gilson, L., 2012. Health Policy and Systems Research: A Methodology Reader. Geneva: World Health Organization. Howe, K. R. (2009). Positivist dogmas, rhetoric, and the education science question. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 428-440. Kelly, M. P. and Moore, T. A., 2012.‘The judgement process in evidence-based medicine and health technology assessment’,Social Theory & Health, 10(1), pp. 1-19. Komives, S. R. and Dugan, J. P., 2010.‘Contemporary leadership theories’. In: Political and civic leadership: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 111-120. Lévesque, M. C., Hovey, R. B. and Bedos, C., 2013. ‘Advancing patient-centered care through transformative educational leadership: a critical review of health care professional preparation for patient-centered care’, Journal of Healthcare Leadership, Volume 5, pp. 35-46. Liamputtong, P., 2010. ‘The science of words and the science of numbers: Research methods as foundations for evidence-based practice in health’. In: Research methods in health: Foundations for evidence-based practice. s.l.: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-26. Makhene, E., 2009. Philosophy for the Medical Student and Practitioner.s.l.: Lulu. McDonnell, O., 2013. ‘Social Constructionism’. In: J. Gabe & L. Monaghan, eds. Key Concepts in Medical Sociology. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd., pp. 115-118. McKinlay, J. B., Marceau, L. D. and Piccolo, R. J., 2012.‘Do Doctors Contribute to the Social Patterning of Disease The Case of Race/Ethnic Disparities in Diabetes Mellitus’,Medical Care Research and Review, 69(2), pp. 176-193. Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P. and Stew, G., 2012. ‘Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 2: Introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods’,Manual therapy, 17(5), pp. 378-384. Ross, T., 2012.A Survival Guide for Health Research Methods.Berkshire: McGraw-Hill International. Shiffman, J., 2009. ‘A social explanation for the rise and fall of global health issues’,Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 87(8), pp. 608-613. Smith, N., Mitton, C. and Peacock, S., 2009.‘Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research’,Health economics, 18(10), pp. 1163-1175. Stewart, S. L., 2009. ‘One Indigenous Academics Evolution: A Personal Narrative of Native Health Research and Competing Ways of Knowing’,First Peoples Child & Family Review, 4(1), pp. 57-65. Read More