Positivsm vs Interpretivism: You Opinions

[DarthFishy]

To give some context:

Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only authentic knowledge is knowledge that is based on actual sense experience. Such knowledge can only come from affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.

From the WP article on Interpretivism.

Social scientists adopt one of four main ontological approaches: realism (the idea that facts are out there just waiting to be discovered), empiricism (the idea that we can observe the world and evaluate those observations in relation to facts), positivism (which focuses on the observations themselves, attentive more to claims about facts than to facts themselves), and post-modernism (which holds that facts are fluid and elusive, so that we should focus only on our observational claims).

Bold added to show what is seens as Interpretivism in Social Sciences.

From my reading of these forums (which I do vicariously) I have seen that there is some opposition to the idea of post-modernism and interpretivism. Now my question is, is using an Interpretivist Methodology in one's research non-sceptical? Can one only be sceptical if one is following a positivistic approach?

What do you think?

 

[Soapy Sam]

There are two parts to the universe, reality and imagination.
I pay novelists for imagination. Reality comes free.

Now, what do you mean you read the forums vicariously? Someone reads them for you?

 

[DarthFishy]

Now, what do you mean you read the forums vicariously? Someone reads them for you?

Er... I must remember to read up the real definition of a word before using it. I meant... inordinately. Or a lot anyway

As to the rest of your reply, are you saying that post-modernism is bunk?

 

[Dancing David]

Um, science is relativism in it's rawest form, you would have a hard time finding people objecting to it in the Science forum. Take this to Social issues, you are barking up the wrong tree, this is the post modern forum.

There are no absolutes, there are no overarching schemes that explain the universe.

try flying some bogus high level abstracted theory in this forum, especially regarding social science, we can chew it up.

Go look at any of the threads on the self and consciousness.

 

[fuelair]

By the definition of it given in Wiki, I would say yes, yes it is bunk. Unless it is limited to facts re:say political activities of desperate to be elected candidates, desperate to push their agenda religious, etc.

 

[DarthFishy]

Thanks for the replies so far.

If I understand the comments correctly, you are saying that post-modernism, as a research methdology, is useful only for subjective sciences ("subjective science" being a term many may reject as a contradiction in terms) or social sciences, but shouldn't be applied to the hard sciences at all?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Darth, I'm saying "Bunk is bunk".
Postmodernism is simply unreadable. Life's too short for such tosh.
Ever see a postmodernist voltmeter? Postmodernist turboprop?
Meanings are real. Things are real. Language is real.
This does not mean you can change reality by using language . It will bite you on the bum. And not vicariously.

 

[DarthFishy]

This does not mean you can change reality by using language . It will bite you on the bum. And not vicariously.

Firstly touche

Secondly, I must respectfully disagree with the first part of the quote, with a caveat (don't worry this time I checked it out on dictionary.com). While I agree that changing language cannot change the physical makeup of things, e.g. the (in)famous Water with Memory experiment, I do believe that changing language can change meaning, and thus people's subjective reality.

E.g. the term neo-con. The original meaning is something along the lines of:

...representing a realignment in American politics, and the defection of some liberals to the right side of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being 'new' conservatives.

Most often on the internet it roughly translates to "Republican Fascist Pig"

You can, with merit, argue that this is merely ignorant usage of the term but it does have an effect on the way people view reality.

Now of course the question is how does this relate to science? And especially research?

Let's make the assumption firstly that we agree that the Social Sciences is a science afterall. Let's take a more concrete example, say, Gender Studies!

Ok, and let's say you are studying the differences between men and women in the workplace, let say in terms power relationships. To do this you decide to interview a series of men and women from a range of industries. You collect all the interview information and start coding the data.

Is it not possible that different people will use certain terms differently? Is it not possible that your subjective interpretation of thier words/terms (and/or bias) will have an effect on your conclusion?

Yes of course!

So do we throw out this research becuase it is subjective? I'd say no. If we admit we (as researchers) are not objective can we not still draw useful conclusions form our "subjective" results?

Its from this perspective that I think post-modernism (and hence interpretivism) has a useful place in some sciences.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I have made a life study of gender. One in particular.

Sure, you're right that language changes perception. Torture changes perception. Lighting changes perception. Closing your eyes to the facts changes perception.

None of this affects the facts themselves.

Now if the fact we are discussing is "It's a fact that women get paid less than men, on average, for the same job", we can debate the meaning of that in terms of our perception of the gender roles of parrots in 18th century Vienna, till the cows come home. It won't in the slightest affect the truth or otherwise of the fact.

If I hand you two wires and tell you "This is gonna hurt", we can dispute the meaning of "hurt" all we like. Take it from me, it' still gonna hurt.

The question is, if objective facts exist independently of human attitude, are we better to deal with them on their terms, or ours?
The answer may well vary with the situation, but I know which side my pitchfork is sticking out of.

In short, Darth I feel the whole concept of "postmodernism" is a palaeo-con in a new disguise. It's the King's New Clothes of 20th century intellectual academe. We all know the meaning of words is critical to debate and that's why we have dictionaries. Including Latin ones.


ETA- Apologies if I seem flippant or dismissive. I'm a meat and potatoes man. Yes, two folk may perceive an argument very differently, while sharing the impression they are arguing abouit the same thing. I'm just saying that the actual grounds for the debate DO exist, yet may not be what either party thinks they are. If the debaters have failed to establish what they are debating about (a recurrent feature of philosophical threads on thes forums) that's their problem. Communication problems exist. Cloaking that fact in needlessly complex -isms, does not help. It just adds a layer of confusion.

Can you give examples where Postmodernist analysis actually clarifies a debate? I'd be interested.

 

[MattusMaximus]

As to the rest of your reply, are you saying that post-modernism is bunk?

I won't speak for Soapy Sam, but I'm willing to say that yes, post-modernism is bunk.

Post-modernist "thinkers" can yammer on all they want about this interpretation and that of reality (however the hell they define reality), but somehow I sense that they always look both ways before crossing the road.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Thanks for the replies so far.

If I understand the comments correctly, you are saying that post-modernism, as a research methdology, is useful only for subjective sciences ("subjective science" being a term many may reject as a contradiction in terms) or social sciences, but shouldn't be applied to the hard sciences at all?

Post-modernism shouldn't be applied to any of the sciences, "soft" or "hard", period.

ETA: Imo, the prevalence of post-modernist woo in many areas of "soft" science is one of the reasons why those "soft" sciences are viewed with disdain by more traditional scientific disciplines.

Btw, I hate the "soft" vs. "hard" science distinction. If you're doing science, you're doing science whether it be in sociology or in physics.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Incidentally, am I the only one who sees the renaming of Post-Modernism as Interpretivism to be basically an attempt at repackaging a bad idea to look like a good one?

Hmmm... never seen that before

 

[Soapy Sam]

They changed the name? To protect the guilty?

 

[DarthFishy]

Yay interesting debate:

ETA- Apologies if I seem flippant or dismissive.

No offense taken. I appreciate your comments.

Before I answer the objections listed above, I would like to clarify my position a little further. I'm currently a young (very young ) researcher in the field of Information Systems, focusing especially on the Social Context and Impact of ICT.

Now I came to this field of study through Computer Science, which includes very little Intereptivist thinking. In essence when I switched over I did a couple of courses about the Philosophy of Information Systems, and the Philosophy of Information Systems Research. In these courses I first came across the ideas of Positivism vs. Interpretivism (vs. Critical Realism but that's another thing all together!)

So I'm not hell bent on defending Interpretivism but I am more trying to figure out the pro's and con's of both and how they apply to my research.

(Ok just one more clarification, I'm also not an expert on post-modernism and I have a feeling I am portraying it incorrectly in terms of Interpretivism. Hopefully the idea behind Interpretivism will be clarified through some further examples).

Ok, back to the other comments:

Now if the fact we are discussing is "It's a fact that women get paid less than men, on average, for the same job", we can debate the meaning of that in terms of our perception of the gender roles of parrots in 18th century Vienna, till the cows come home. It won't in the slightest affect the truth or otherwise of the fact.

Yes, but why are they getting paid less? Is it a fact that they are getting paid less becuase they are the "weaker sex"? Is it becuase they are perceived as the "weaker sex"? I don't know if we can always pull out objective facts about these issues.

Also:

The question is, if objective facts exist independently of human attitude, are we better to deal with them on their terms, or ours?
The answer may well vary with the situation, but I know which side my pitchfork is sticking out of.

While I am sadly lacking in pronged agricultural equipment, I do agree with you. I am just not convinced that we will always be able to experience, describe or interact with these facts objectively. If we can then we should not even consider treating them subjectively, if we can't, then I feel we have no chocie but to.

Can you give examples where Postmodernist analysis actually clarifies a debate? I'd be interested.

I'm going to give an example of how I think Interpretivist analysis could clarify a debate. How much this lines up with post-modern analysis I'm not too sure:

Imagine a large company where top management has suddenly decided to switch from Office 2003 to Office 2007. This causes a lot of frustration, anger etc. in the employees who are forced to make the change.

How would one go about researching this phenomenon, i.e. trying to find out why it happened, could it have been prevented, could it have been managed better, etc.?

Which Objective facts will help you analze the situation? Do we monitor the employees heart rate when they are using the software? Thier galvanic skin responses? And compare this to previously recorded values?(As a control?)

I don't think these kind of measurements or Objective Facts will really help. IMO the best way to obtain data in this case would be through interviews, or questionaires with open ended questions. In these cases there would have to be some kind of subjective analysis of the results.

Ok, this is only a hypothetical example, I can give other real world examples if you would like them...

ETA: Imo, the prevalence of post-modernist woo in many areas of "soft" science is one of the reasons why those "soft" sciences are viewed with disdain by more traditional scientific disciplines.

Btw, I hate the "soft" vs. "hard" science distinction. If you're doing science, you're doing science whether it be in sociology or in physics.

I agree with your second statement. I am not convinced yet that post-modernism = woo (all the time anyway), so I'm still in disagreement with your first statement.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Er... I must remember to read up the real definition of a word before using it. I meant... inordinately.

To be precise, you mean "voraciously".

I'm pretty sure.

 

[DarthFishy]

To be precise, you mean "voraciously".

I'm pretty sure.

Yes indeed. Thank you

 

[Soapy Sam]

Yay interesting debate:

Before I answer the objections listed above, I would like to clarify my position a little further. I'm currently a young (very young ) researcher in the field of Information Systems, focusing especially on the Social Context and Impact of ICT.

APoaA*. What's ICT stand for?

*(A Plague on all Abbreviations).

Now I came to this field of study through Computer Science, which includes very little Intereptivist thinking. In essence when I switched over I did a couple of courses about the Philosophy of Information Systems, and the Philosophy of Information Systems Research. In these courses I first came across the ideas of Positivism vs. Interpretivism (vs. Critical Realism but that's another thing all together!)

So I'm not hell bent on defending Interpretivism but I am more trying to figure out the pro's and con's of both and how they apply to my research.

• Interpretivism - in Cultural Anthropology, the view that cultures can be understood by studying what people think about, their ideas, and the meanings that are important to them.
• Interpretivism - in Ontology, the view that all knowledge is a matter of interpretation.

-(From Wikipedia). Are we talking definition 1, or 2?

(Ok just one more clarification, I'm also not an expert on post-modernism and I have a feeling I am portraying it incorrectly in terms of Interpretivism. Hopefully the idea behind Interpretivism will be clarified through some further examples).

Ok, back to the other comments:



Yes, but why are they getting paid less? Is it a fact that they are getting paid less becuase they are the "weaker sex"? Is it becuase they are perceived as the "weaker sex"? I don't know if we can always pull out objective facts about these issues.

Fact- Historically, men set the pay rates.
Fact- As soon as a job is perceived by men to be "womens' work", it is downgraded in their estimation. This is because men think with their penis.
Fact-Women don't go on strike because they need the money to feed their kids. Men don't have kids, so don't have this problem.Men can't have kids as they won't pass through the penis.
Fact - (Admittedly opinionated, but derived through experience)- Women will not ally in common cause with women they don't like. Men will ally with the Devil himself if they see a personal advantage. This is why men form armies and women form committees.

Also:

While I am sadly lacking in pronged agricultural equipment, I do agree with you. I am just not convinced that we will always be able to experience, describe or interact with these facts objectively. If we can then we should not even consider treating them subjectively, if we can't, then I feel we have no chocie but to.

I have yet to find a fact so nebulous I can't nail it to someone's tail with a pitchfork, but what you say has interest. Lay on, Macduff...

I'm going to give an example of how I think Interpretivist analysis could clarify a debate. How much this lines up with post-modern analysis I'm not too sure:

Imagine a large company where top management has suddenly decided to switch from Office 2003 to Office 2007. This causes a lot of frustration, anger etc. in the employees who are forced to make the change.

How would one go about researching this phenomenon, i.e. trying to find out why it happened, could it have been prevented, could it have been managed better, etc.?

Among the objectivist answers you would get in the computer forum are "OpenOffice 2.3", "Linux" and "Die, Micro$oft $cumbag". This is not helpful, but may be germane.

I'd say there's little here worth researching. Changing tools is only worth doing if the improved output with the new tools creates increased profit that outweighs the costs of retooling. That some of those costs are psychological simply makes them harder to measure. Any manager will tell you the decisions he hates most are those involving personal stress in his employees, whether it's a girl in tears because she was dumped at the weekend or a bitter man who has been passed over for promotion. Viewed objectively, these stresses may seem trivial. Viewed subjectively by the person involved, they are shattering.
Untill we have a metric for personal emotion, the whole idea of cultural interpretivist management seems doomed to me. Too broad a brush.

Which Objective facts will help you analze the situation? Do we monitor the employees heart rate when they are using the software? Thier galvanic skin responses? And compare this to previously recorded values?(As a control?)

Waste of time, I think. You couldn't separate stress due to the new software from stress due to everything else in their miserable, cubicle constrained lives. Even if you could, individual variation would swamp the signal.

I don't think these kind of measurements or Objective Facts will really help. IMO the best way to obtain data in this case would be through interviews, or questionaires with open ended questions. In these cases there would have to be some kind of subjective analysis of the results.

Ok, this is only a hypothetical example, I can give other real world examples if you would like them...

I think when we deal with people rather than things , we need communication, honesty and respect. If there is dispute it is vital we all know what we are arguing about and that we know the motivations of the disputants - which in some cases will be irrational and in others will have no immediate link to the actual dispute, but will arise from personal attitudes formed long ago and far away. ("The ass responsible for this so-called "Upgrade", is a Catholic"). The problem with asking people their reasons is that they lie. Worse, they lie about their reasons for lying, especially when they think that lying is itself an advantage in the dispute.

I agree with your second statement. I am not convinced yet that post-modernism = woo (all the time anyway), so I'm still in disagreement with your first statement.

PM may not be always woo, but the greatest exponents of it- artists, "social scientists" and writers-have convinced "asocial scientists", engineers and many others that it is, by adopting a pretentiously ornate writing style which too often seems designed to conceal a lack of evidence or rigorous argument. Where are the supporting data?

As you show no sign of that and seem to have your head the right way up, you may be it's best hope yet on this forum. The field is yours...

 

[Cuddles]

I am not convinced yet that post-modernism = woo

I'm not sure post-modernism is necessarily woo, it's just utterly pointless. Waffling about the nature of reality and wondering if reality is really real is all very well, but it can never actually tell you anything. If you want to know if your thoughts are in any way representative of reality, you have to actually check with reality, and as soon as you do that you're doing actual science and not philosophy.

However, from your last post it doesn't seem as if you're talking about post-modernism, or any philosophy. Sure, there are some areas where it isn't possible to get solid, objective facts, but those are still just as open to scientific research as anything else. You can simply ask were people happy with the change, how would they rate various factors as leading to frustration (time, cost, having to learn to use it, etc.), what could be done differently, and so on. At no point do you need to start wondering about the subjective nature of reality. You're not going to get an answer like g=9.8m/s, because that's not the sort of question you're asking, but you'll still get an answer. If it was philosophy, all you'd get would be more questions.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If it was philosophy, all you'd get would be more questions.

You reckon?



I think you make a fine meta-point. There seem to be (at least) two different interpretations of the meaning of "postmodernism" here.
1. General JREF view= Meaningless twaddle.
2. DF view- a possibly useful research modality.
?3. Dancing David's view, which I wish he'd expand a bit, as I'm not sure I follow.

ETA- I'm off to clear a path, using the scientific / objectivist method. And a shovel.

 

[Dancing David]

I guess that I was thinking of a different post modernism, mine was more of the words are only idiomatic symbols that gain meaning through reference and there is no ideal and better culture type of postmodernism.

Hmmm, that was the post modern thought I was thinking of, so I retract my prior statement.

History is by and large the study of dead white men in the US. I thought you meant that post modernism sort. Or the whole, religous morals are a crock an atheist society would function just as well as a theistic one.