Vijay Ratna Kumar Blog

Neuman (1997) and Blaikie (1993) suggest that there are three distinct approaches to social science research: positivism (or objectivism), interpretive, and critical. Each of these represents a model or a paradigm for research—an accepted set of theories, procedures, and assumptions about how researchers look at the world. Paradigms are based on axioms, or statements that are universally accepted as true. Paradigms are important because they are related to the selection of research methodologies.

The positivist paradigm is the oldest and still the most widely used in mass media research. Derived from the writings of philosophers such as Comte and Mill, positivism is the paradigm most used in the natural sciences. When the social sciences developed, researchers modified this technique for their own purposes. The positivist paradigm involves such concepts as quantification, hypotheses, and objective measures.

Interpretive social science traces its roots to Max Weber and Wilhelm Dilthey. The aim of the interpretive paradigm is to understand how people in everyday natural settings create meaning and interpret the events of their world. This paradigm became popular in mass media research during the 1970s and 1980s and gained added visibility in the 1990s and the new century.

The critical paradigm draws on analysis models used in the humanities. Critical researchers are interested in such concepts as the distribution of power in society and political ideology.

The positivist paradigm differs from the interpretive paradigm along three main dimensions. First, the two approaches have a different philosophy of reality. For the positivist researcher, reality is objective; it exists apart from researchers and can be seen by all. In other words, it is out there. For the interpretive researcher, there is no single reality. Each observer creates reality as part of the research process. It is subjective and exists only in reference to the observer.

 Perhaps a classic example will help here. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make any noise? On the one hand, a positivist would answer yes—reality doesn’t depend on an observer; it exists independently. On the other hand, an interpretive researcher would say no noise was made—reality exists only in the observer. Furthermore, the positivist researcher believes that reality can be divided into component parts, and knowledge of the whole is gained by looking at the parts. In contrast, the interpretive researcher examines the entire process, believing that reality is holistic and cannot be subdivided.

Second, the two approaches have different views of the individual. The positivist researcher believes all human beings are basically similar and looks for general categories to summarize their behaviours or feelings. The interpretive investigator believes that human beings are fundamentally different and cannot be pigeonholed.

Third, positivist researchers aim to generate general laws of behaviour and explain many things across many settings. In contrast, interpretive scholars attempt to produce a unique explanation about a given situation or individual. Whereas positivist researchers strive for breadth, interpretive researchers strive for depth.

The following five major research areas demonstrate significant differences between the positivist and interpretive approaches: