Theorie of Positivism and Constructivism - Article Example

Philosophical Theories Introduction: In this thesis the different philosophical paradigms of positivism and constructivism are articulated to show how they apply to real world events and contexts. The ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions in positivism and constructivism could be highlighted to understand philosophical positions and relevant theories in the field. For example the way we deal with stress would bring about differences in the positivist and constructivist models as positivist models would show how medication would be the best outcome and the empirical data obtained would support success in treatment. In contrast to such medicinal procedures Eastern medicine in some cases support the use of acupuncture and may even reduce stress. Effects of acupuncture would not be explained through traditional medical models and patients have experienced stress reduction by using acupuncture. The physiological effects of acupuncture can also be theoretically supported with evidence and in this essay I would argue which model of philosophy best fits in with our own belief systems and how this claim could be justified or established. Positivism and Constructivism The focus here is thus on differentiating and yet finding common grounds between constructivist and positivist philosophies. The similarities and differences of these two systems of thought could be highlighted not only with regard to stress but several other examples could be used to show exactly where these two systems vary and how they would differ. Positivism relies on strict scientific method and empirical understanding of events. Advocated by Comte, Popper and by scientists, positivism was considered as the most important approach to philosophy of science that could bring about scientific progress with natural or material approaches defined or understood empirically (Mill, 1993). Positivism is generally considered as the scientific method as science is based on certain statements which are empirically testable and verifiable (Morris, 2006). The logical structure and coherence of these statements would make a phenomenon scientifically explicable and only then this would be accepted as explaining the events of the world. Positivism being the best scientific explanation is also closely related to reductionism which shows how one type of entity would be reducible to another. The basis of positivism would relate to quantitative and objective measurement of the events or phenomena studied. Scientific information is thus information that can be quantified and objectively studied. Apart from reductionism, positivism is also closely related to empiricism as that is the basis of positivist philosophies. Positivist could also be explained in the light of logical positivism and would provide a broad picture of scientific methods their philosophy, approach and uses. The logical positivists focused on the verification principle and emphasized that science should be based on observable facts. The logical positivists such as Carnap, Schlick and others of the Vienna Circle focused on analytic-synthetic distinctions and on verificationism as a scientific method (Mill, 1993). The positivist approach to philosophy is thus based on observable facts and scientific explanation focused on verifiability and empirical judgment. Constructivism on the other hand emphasizes on social experiences and human perceptions that seems to take a broader view of philosophy (Butts and Brown, 1989). Constructivists believe that race, gender and such identities are socially constructed. Thus constructivism does not focus on ontological reality but a socially constructed reality. Concepts and evens are thus not out there but shaped by a variety of social and psychological factors (Morris, 2006). In this case, the objectivity and emphasis on the objective give way to the subjective as constructivism is largely subjective in its approach being less scientifically rigorous than positivists or empiricists and more reflective and relativist. The question of reality remains open within positivist and constructivist approaches as to a positivist, whatever is verifiable or empirically testable is real whereas to a constructivist, reality is based on social perception and even human understanding. For example social constructivism would emphasize on relationships and interactions and would bring out the importance of social structures and institutions. Richard Rorty and Jean Piaget among others were proponents of social constructivism and constructivism also provides its won scientific explanations albeit considering holistic social and psychological perspectives as well. Martinez (1995) drew out a comparison between constructivism and positivism and emphasized that there may be a need to reformulate the hypothesis that shows the antagonism between these two systems of thought. Martinez in fact proposed an alternative hypothesis suggesting that ,’The philosophical principles of constructivism and positivism are not opposed, quite the contrary, constructivism would essentially constitute a variant of positivism’ (Martinez, 1995, p10-11). This would itself be a radical position as two opposed philosophies have very little in common. Yet there are differing views that tend to seek a sort of middle ground between constructivism and positivism. In a related study, Caputi and Oades (2001) highlighted on Brzonsky’s study and the role of personal epistemological assumptions in construction of self identity. The study involved development of a Constructivist Assumption Scale or CAS that measures assumptions of persons and their relation to identity style. Botella and Gallifa (1995) have given a constructivist model of epistemic development and measured positivism and constructivism as also mechanism and organicism. This showed the relationship between identity style, preferred worldviews and constructivist assumptions of individuals. A positive relationship has been indicated between constructivist assumptions and information orientation and approaches to self identity with negative relationships between constructivism and preferred worldviews with normative orientations (Caputi and Oades, 2001). The epistemic assumptions of describing oneself or the world may be different depending on constructivist and /or empiricist and positivist approaches. However the question remains how would constructivist and positivist ideologies relate to our everyday understanding of the world or ourselves and how would these theories be practically applicable. Considering issues of stress or health problems apart which in positivistic terms would use medications and clinical observations as opposed to holistic therapy which is more constructivist, positivism and constructivism could be differentiated in other ways. For example psychological understanding of employees and their behavior within organisations would be an important aspect of constructivist theories and the relationships between workers and management would be an essential part of the management principles. Constructivist principles based on social relationships, human perceptions and interactions would be an inherent aspect of modern management theories and principles. Constructivism is thus holistic as opposed to positivism and empiricism which is strictly based on interpretation of observable facts and events. In a workers’ or management situations, whereas constructivism would deal with relationships and psychological interactions and motives, bringing out the subjective in interactions, positivism and empiricism would purely judge the situation in terms of stimulus, response and observable facts as to what happened in a particular situation and why or how it happened considering the events. Conclusion: This discussion brought out the differences in constructivist theories as opposed to positivist theories which are based on scientific approaches to solution of problems. Empiricism and positivism are characterized by emphasis on verifiable statements that are considered scientific and observable facts. Positivism and Empiricism thus form the base of a scientific method of enquiry which may not have the broader appeal of constructivism. Constructivism on the other hand is base don holistic understanding of situations and events with lesser emphasis on observable facts and verifiable statements and more focus on psychological constructions, social experiences and human understanding. Constructivism brings in a human and subjective element to all aspects of living including in business, medicine, sociology and even within understanding of modern science. Bibliography: Constructivism and science : essays in recent German philosophy / edited by Robert E. Butts and James Robert Brown. The University of Western Ontario series in philosophy of science ; 44 Dordrecht ; Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989. Caputi P.; Oades L. EPISTEMIC ASSUMPTIONS: UNDERSTANDING SELF AND THE WORLD (A NOTE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDENTITY STYLE, WORLD VIEW, AND CONSTRUCTIVIST ASSUMPTIONS USING AN AUSTRALIAN SAMPLE) Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Volume 14, Number 2, 1 April 2001 , pp. 127-134(8) Martínez, Alberto Constructivismo, ¿una vuelta a los principios filosóficos del positivismo? Constructivism: A return to the philosophical principles of positivism? Comunicacion, Lenguaje y Educacion, Volume 7, Number 4, 1 December 1995 , pp. 5-13(9) Matthews M.R.Reappraising Positivism and Education: The Arguments of Philipp Frank and Herbert Feigl Science and Education, Volume 13, Numbers 1-2, February 2004 , pp. 7-39(33) Morris, Teresa. Social work research methods : four alternative paradigms / Teresa Morris. London : SAGE, 2006. Mill, John Stuart, 1806-1873. Auguste Comte and positivism / John Stuart Mill. Bristol : Thoemmes, 1993. Read More