LOGICAL POSITIVISM AND INTERPRETIVE EPISTEMOLOGIES

Logical Positivism and Interpretive Epistemologies

Logical Positivism and Interpretive Epistemologies

Introduction

Technical rationality is based on the principle of logical positivism, while reflection in action is based on the principle of interpretive epistemologies. Logical positivism was a philosophical move to disentangle the natural sciences from religious and metaphysical beliefs, stressing the importance of logic (the notion of logic distinguished logical from classical positivism). As a paradigm, logical positivism separated logos (reason) from mythos (myth or metaphysical beliefs), advocating a type of science that is based strictly on the mathematical notion of proof. Logical positivists have been criticized for having a limited view of logic, situated in the context of mathematics (Elwood & Cope, 2009). The conceptualized notion is fulfilled by the scenario set by technical rationality. Any dissonance in the followed practiced is answered by reflection in action.

Discussion

The logical positivists conceptualized objective knowledge to exist independently from an observer and to abide by universal laws. Through an exploration of causal relationships, knowledge can be predicted, measured and quantified. The logical positivists differentiated between two types of knowledge, namely, logical/mathematical and natural/scientific knowledge. The logical/mathematical knowledge relief on the formation of propositions derived from definitions, whereas the natural/scientific knowledge relied on synthetic statements of relationships that cannot be known just by going back to the definitions. To illustrate this, Bredo refers to a proposition taken from the natural sciences: 'the pressure of a closed container will increase at a certain rate with an increase in the temperature'. He argues that this proposition cannot be ascertained by relying on the definitions of pressure and temperature.

Schon's research focused on the nature of professional knowledge, as well as the role of experience in shaping learning, and imagining and realizing alternative practices. He concluded that many professional practitioners perceive professional knowledge as being “mismatched to the changing character of the situations of practice—the complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflicts which are increasingly perceived as central to the world of professional practice” (Schon 1983, 14). In his view, developing an appreciation and understanding of the context for professional action is central to effective practice.

Schon conceptualized the development of this understanding as reflection-in-action. He described reflection-in-action as an essentially artistic process in which the practitioner makes judgments and exercises skills without an explicitly articulated rationale, but with an intuitive sense of professional correctness, confidence, and accumulated experience. The practitioner constructs a new theory of ...