POSITIVISM AND INTERPRETIVISM

Critical Discussion Of The Two Research Paradigms, Positivism And Interpretivism

Critical Discussion Of The Two Research Paradigms, Positivism And Interpretivism

Colin Hay's Political Analysis hopes to make social research more conscious and explicit about the underlying assumptions upon which its choice of analytical strategies is premised (2002, p. 1). This choice requires necessary trade-offs that ought to be rendered explicit given the way in which, he claims, social research cannot achieve absolute objectivity. Indeed, although they often remain unacknowledged, implicit meta-theoretical positions and assumptions profoundly shape our approach to theory and method (Marsh and Furlong, 2002, p. 17). This article considers whether Hay's argument that such assumptions ought to be rendered explicit - based on a via media, or middle way, between positivist and interpretivist social science - maintains strength and coherence in the wider explanation and understanding debate. As such, while many critical contributions have focused on his epistemology, this article takes a broader perspective on Political Analysis's contribution to the philosophy of social science.

The philosophy of social science literature generally holds that 'positivism' places an emphasis on experience in general, and observation and testing in particular. A key example is the work of Emile Durkheim who aims to 'extend the scope of scientific rationalism' to human behaviour based on the belief that, in light of the past, it is capable of being reduced to relationships of cause and effect (Durkheim, 1982, p. 33). By contrast, 'interpretivism' appeals to 'subjective meaning', Verstehen and concepts such as empathy and interpretation. In the strong version, based on an anthropological or sceptical relativism, it holds that social differentiation gives rise to distinct 'ways of knowing' between which there is no way of according common standards (Williams, 2001, p. 10). In all, this article will attempt to show that Hay's via media approach successfully navigates a path between these positivist and interpretivist approaches. To this end, we must evaluate his claims about the subject-matter of the social sciences, the limits of positivism and interpretivism and, finally, the via media approach itself.

 

The subject-matter of the social sciences

A key theme of Political Analysis is the qualitative difference in subject-matter between the natural and the social sciences. Following Bhaskar, Hay maintains that social structures, unlike natural structures: (1) do not exist independently of the activities they govern; (2) do not exist independently of an agent's conception of their activity; and (3) may only be relatively enduring (2002, p. 85).

Taking each in turn, distinction (1) holds that active, conscious and reflexive subjects inhabit the social world whereas the units of analysis in the natural sciences can be assumed to be inanimate and un-reflexive. This brings into question the notion of a predictive science of the social world and thus explanations based on the probabilistic symmetry between explanation and prediction. If social systems are 'intrinsically open', decisive test situations for our theories cannot be created, which means there can be no rational confirmation or rejection of predictions (Bhaskar, 1989, ...