Positivism vs Critical Theory: Comparative Research - Term Paper Example

Running head: POSITIVISM, CRITICAL THEORY Positivism, Critical Theory and the Quest for Reconciliation. Critical theory and the limits of sociological positivism have been an ongoing discussion for over a century. Long-standing debates about the relative value of quantitative vs. qualitative research, and of positivism vs. critical theory in many areas of study, including sociology and anthropology, have lead their proponents to declare academic victory in some instances that precludes its adversary. Rather than choosing between the methodologies as either/or approaches, these discussions can be entered upon with an eye toward achieving a synthesis of thinking and methodologies that apply to all disciplines with important and scientifically valid results. Positivism as an epistemological perspective and philosophy of science holds that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on sense experience and positive scientific verification. It utilizes the quantitative research method--the systematic empirical investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena and their relationships. The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ rigid mathematical models, theories and/or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena. In essence, both from a practical and critical viewpoint, the method, writes Bernard (2000) “reduces people to numbers” (p. 419). The positivist view of the world is clear cut. There is a way to get at the “truth,” and through it a way as well to gain control over our environment through indisputable understanding. The world and the universe are deterministic and function by laws of cause and effect that can be discerned if we only apply the pure empirical method. It is a robotic affair in which through the use of deductive reasoning theories are postulated testable. The results, if unsuitable, can be revised to better predict reality. The positivist had a religious belief in empiricism, and that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor and experiment its parent. Neyhouse, who has used positivist methods in modern studies on criminology supports its use along with other methodologies and explains early twentieth-century aversion to it with the advent of critical theory. Neyhouse writes: …”positivism has exerted great influence in twentieth-century thought…positivism has been so influential that human freedom [from a critical theory point of view] lies in the balance of a successful opposition to it” (Neyhouse, 2002: 1). Sociological positivism expounded by Emile Durkheim as a foundation to social research expanded this rigid theory to social sciences including sociology, anthropology and other fields of study. At the turn of the 20th century, however, sociologists including Max Weber and Georg Simmel rejected the doctrine, presenting antipositivist theories that abhorred the reduction of everything in the social sciences to pure logic. Ringer (1997) interpreting Weber writes, “...the chief task of the historian or student of culture is the hermeneutic or interpretive understanding (Verstehen) of human meanings” (p. 1). Habermas shares the view of Weber that “...social scientific method is distinct from natural scientific method” (Braaten, 1991: p. 107 ) However neither conclude that the two methodologies are mutual exclusive when it comes to research. Critical theory critiqued positivism as maintaining the convenient status quo [through manipulation of facts and numbers] and as hindering social change. “...the passion for critical theory came out of a particular historical political moment of self- and collective transformation [its goal, to transform society]. Critical theory best gave voice to the New Left understanding of politics as psychological and cultural transformation” (Wexler,1991: vii). In response to Positivism, Critical Theory first developed at the Frankfurt School to describe and study Marxist social philosophy did so in broad terms, providing the normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing human freedom in all forms. The social theory that developed was oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole in stark contrast to traditional positivist theory geared toward understanding or explaining it through the collection of empirical data. In the social sciences in particular, quantitative research method was supplanted by qualitative methods. These methods utilized the examination, analysis and interpretation of observations for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships in a manner not completely reliant upon sterile mathematical models. Bernard (2000) describes qualitative analysis as “reducing people to words—your words about the meaning of their words or actions or artifacts [a particularly useful method in studies in anthropology]” (p. 419). Modern Critical Thinking seeks to combine empirical social inquiry with normative philosophical argumentation. Whether the quantitative v. qualitative approaches can ever be reconciled is a matter of ongoing debate. Presenting the historical background for Critical Theory, Neyhouse, (2002) appears to insinuate that a modern evolution of critical theory away from strict Marxist principles and totalitarian society makes it not only possible but probable. Discussing Critical Theory as born at the Frankfurt School to support Marxist social theory, modern thinkers view these original theories as currently inadequate to explain social changes and their evolution over time enhanced by more interdisciplinary research. Neyhouse (2002) explains in terms of the study of criminology and tendencies toward the use of positivist methodologies. “These signs [an uptick in criminal behaviour in hard economic times] are... perceived by the powerful as threat to their status…positivistic ideals appeal to the needs of the bourgeoisie because they offer possible relief from this threat” (3). Regarding arguments concerning both positivist and critical theory approaches in such areas for instance as international politics, Jones (2001) found that until the 1980s the Positivist more empirically reliant view prevailed. Since then, however, “the critical theory move within international relations runs parallel to and is wholly complementary with the development largely beyond the discipline of a wider literature...” (p. 2). This has come about some argument about how evolutionary critical theories are impacting scholarship. Despite the academic promise of critical theory and its evolution and acceptance of positivist methods as valid companions in research, a strong exception to the evolving nature and use of theory in certain scholarly disciplines can not be ignored. It may well become the next argument. Fear among certain scholastic disciplines is growing concerning the ever encompassing role of critical theory in interdisciplinary study and research will soon obliterate specific scholarly fields. Herbert (1999) in American Anthropology writes, “ It may be the dream of some—it is certainly the nightmare of others that anthropology will be replaced by a combination of literary and critical theory, cultural studies, multicultural studies...” that some believe will result in “a conceptual free fall where disciplines have no terrain of their own” (429). Jones (2001) critiques opinions by Robert Keohane in which both the rationalist [using the precepts of positive social science] and reflectivist [including critical theory] are considered. “It is clear that the reader is meant to infer from the labeling of the two approaches [from Keohane’s perspective] that members of the reflectivist camp are somehow hostile to rationality...as far as critical theory is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth” (Jones, 2001: 3). Bernard (2000) concurs. “It’s pretty obvious, I think, that each kind of data—qualitative and quantitative—is useful for answering certain kinds of questions” (p. 419). In Support of Synthesis There is, no doubt, a problem in incorporating both theories into social science studies. Ringer (1997) found: “...attempts to explicate them have run into problems, including the central difficulty of reconciling theories of explanation with theories of interpretation. On the whole, however, spokesmen for the explanatory direction have minimized the methodological differences between the natural and the historical or cultural sciences. Some of them have believed—or been suspected of believing—that the facts about the past could be assembled to yield significant empirical generalizations” (p. 2). Despite problems, Neyhouse (2002), in using positivist methodology in her studies on criminology suggests its place in modern research. “The question is, what makes the theories that result from ...positivism so attractive to scholars...(1), suggesting further that the question can be answered by looking at the historical evolution of methodology. In the end, Neyhouse asserts, “the answer is that usually ideas develop in response to previous ideas as new social/economic/political circumstances emerge” (Neyhouse, 2002: 2). In essence, positivism, for a time, fell out of favor with theorists as a metholology because of “whichever class of people [critical theorists] happen to have hegemonic power at a specific time period in question” (Neyhouse, 2002: 2). Positivism has regained credibility over time and asserted its place with other methodologies. Many sociologists today operate somewhere between positivism and antipositivism, sometimes described as postpositivism. Many sociologists agree that scientific method and its empirical data have more than a small place in research. While most would discard the notion of pure positivism as outdated and un-evolved in terms of social and cultural research significance, they also understand that in its reasonably enlightened state it is useful and must not be discarded out of hand. Scientists, social and otherwise, may argue the strength and weaknesses of either theory, but the more rational and more favored approach wisely incorporates both data and statistics—albeit rigid in the latter’s case—with the more philosophical and socially sensitive methods of critical theory. Social scientists realize that one cannot identify laws that would hold true in all cases when human behaviour is concerned, and that while the behaviour of groups may at times be predicted with numbers and probability, the behaviour of individuals escapes its predictions. Thus positivist theory can produce only a macro view of situations often requiring micro perception and conclusions. The sociologists today who function somewhere between in the intermediate position of positivism and antipositivism argue that human behaviour is simply too complex to be studied with only numbers and charts, yet because of that complexity must sometimes be reduced by numbers to a common denominator for further evaluation. Works Cited Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London & Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications Inc. Braaten, J. (1991). Habermas’s critical theory of society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ingram, D. (1990). Critical theory and philosophy. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Ingram, D. (1992). Critical theory: The essential readings (J. S. Ingram, Ed.). Publisher: St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Jones, R. W. (Ed.). (2001). Critical theory and world politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Lewis, Herbert S. (1999). Anthropology and cultural and critical theory? American Anthropologist, 101:2, 4. Retrieved March 22, 2010 from: http://www.jstor.org/pss/683227 Neyhouse, T.J. (2002) (Introduction). Positivism in criminological thought: A study in the history and use of ideas. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Ringer, F. (1997). Max Webers methodology: The unification of the cultural and social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wexler, P. (Ed.) (1991) (Preface) Critical Theory Now. London: Falmer Press. . Read More