Positivism, Interpretivism and Post-Structuralism - Essay Example

The research methodology involved researching various paradigms such as positivism, interpretivism and post-structuralism. The researcher discovered that the definitive distinctions between specific paradigms rely on three features which are, a belief in the nature of knowledge, a methodology and a valid criteria. It is primarily the construction of these three features that lends itself to distinction in any research project. It draws specific attention to the inherent connections between theory, politics and research, each from the perspective of the researcher as the choice of paradigm takes shape forming the theory under investigation. The researcher believes that research is essentially a political activity because it engages elements of knowledge, decision-making and power. According to Foucault (1991) power is present throughout all social relationships and it is closely tied to knowledge which frequently exists in theories. Foucault’s view of power represents a balanced approach, as he expresses the position that in addition to restricting the individual, power also has the capacity to enable the individual, propelling action. Moreover, according to Foucalt, power only functions when the individual is at liberty to exercise it: ‘We should admit that power produces knowledge… that power and knowledge directly imply one another, that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations’ (Foucault, 1991 p27) A quantitative approach to research is more likely predicated on neutral politics neutrality since it engages objectivity. Conversely a qualitative approach to research is aptly characterised as entirely political since it is subjective in nature. Sikes (2003) takes the position that research is for all intents and purposes a political activity because it impacts the lives of people regardless of how slight and tangible. Emphasising the distinctive characteristics of the three defining paradigms the researcher was aided in analytical research paradigms which provided the basis for the work encapsulated in this research project. Mac Naughton et al (2001) maintains that selecting a working paradigm is the first step in the research design. However, this is easier said than done since controversies exist among the available approaches with the result that selection can be an onerous task in and of itself. For the researcher choosing between interpretivism and post-structuralism was difficult because there are parallels between the two. Both paradigms are perceived as qualitative approaches that take a world view that results from the continuing negotiations among people. Collectively, interpretivism and post-structuralism assess the integrity of knowledge by virtue of the “authenticity of the research participants’ voices” (Mac Naughton et al, 2001). Despite the similarities in these two paradigms, there are some distinctions relative to the views of knowledge. An interpretivist approach to research attempts to offer an explanation as to how people rationalize their respective social worlds. Within this paradigm the position taken is that the individual’s constructions or interpretations contributes to people’s conduct within a specific setting. The implications are that the social world is pre-interpreted and the applied language is a manifestation of this fact. On the contrary, a poststructuralist approach to research takes the position that the world is essentially incoherent and disconnected so that individual comprehensives of the world are highly individualistic quite often influenced by individual experiences and social and material stratums such as race, gender and class. This paradigm does not subscribe to the concept that we can be certain with respect to the world, because it is characterised by a great degree of complexity. This paradigm focuses on the inherent connections between knowledge, power and identity. Since it perceives world understanding as predicated on contingencies, this paradigm attempts to illustrate how phenomenon emanates from discourses. This relatively small-scale research study was unable to capitalize on paradigms such as positivism because this quantitative approach typically requires the collection of infinite data for generalizing with respect to metrics. It is also incompatible with a study of human behaviour since these kinds of abstract elements are not capable of specific scientific quantification. It is likewise entirely difficult to measure complex human nature and social phenomenon scientifically (Cohen et al, 2000). Quantitative research is dependent upon an objective approach which creates distance between the researcher and the thing researched for the purpose of understanding and explaining as opposed to promoting change (Robson, 1993). Read More