IPRes MC 1
Postivism, scientific realism en interpretivism
Key assumptions in positivism:
There is no fundamental difference between the social world and the natural world
as an object of research
What we can know of the world is limited by our ability to observe
The researcher sets out to discover cause and effect relationships between
phenomena, limited to what is observable
The researcher and her / his object of study are separate: what we observe are
attributes of the objects we study
There is a clear distinction between facts and values
Key assumptions in scientific realism
Reality is out there
Yet it is only objectively observable to a limited extent: “there are enduring
structures and generative mechanisms underlying and producing observable
phenomena”
These underlying structures can be observed via their manifestations in the
observable reality
Observation of these is based on, and informed by theory
Key assumptions in interpretivism
There is a fundamental difference between the social world and the natural world as
an object of research
The researcher and the object of study are connected because our understanding of
reality is never outside language
What is there to know can only be known ‘through the eye of the beholder’
What we observe are constructions that result from the interaction between
researcher and research object
Cause and effect at best can be understood in terms of
‘mutual simultaneous shaping’
Positivist aim: explaining. Interpretivist aim: understand and reflect. Scientific realist aim:
understand and explain.
, Bij ontologie vragen we onszelf “Is er zoiets als een objectieve realiteit?” Is er zoiets als een
echte wereld? Iets wat altijd waar is, ongeacht wie het meemaakt.
Voorbeeld: Is discriminatie iets objectiefs?
Positivisten zullen altijd zeggen, dat dit er zeker is (voorbeeld van stoel)
Interpretivisten zeggen dat er niet zoiets is als één objectieve wereld.
Bij epistemologie onderzoek je wat de aard van de relatie is tussen de onderzoeker en de
realiteit, het fenomeen dat plaatsvindt.
Positivisten zullen zeggen: het maakt niet uit wie dit onderzoekt, je zult tot dezelfde
conclusie komen.
Interpretivisten zeggen dat de positie van een onderzoeker altijd invloed zal hebben
op het standpunt.
Kwantitatief zit vaak meer richting het positivisme, interpretivisme zit vaak dichter bij het
kwalitatieve.
Types of research questions
Descriptive questions:
What/ who/ where/ when?
Focus on the characteristics of actors/ events/ developments/ etc.
Explanatory questions:
Why? How does X determine Y?
Focus on cause-effect relations
Normative:
What ought to be the case?
Moral reasoning
Descriptive:
What percentage of people votes in the general election in European countries?
Explanatory
Why do people vote: which factors affect voting?
o Positivist/ realist take on causation: identified by the researcher on the basis
of theory and/ or observation
What motivations do people have to vote?
o Interpretivist take on causation: can be understood from the internal reasons
shared by respondents.
Normative
Why should people vote?
Criteria research question
1. Open question (no yes/ no answer possible)
2. Descriptive or explanatory
Postivism, scientific realism en interpretivism
Key assumptions in positivism:
There is no fundamental difference between the social world and the natural world
as an object of research
What we can know of the world is limited by our ability to observe
The researcher sets out to discover cause and effect relationships between
phenomena, limited to what is observable
The researcher and her / his object of study are separate: what we observe are
attributes of the objects we study
There is a clear distinction between facts and values
Key assumptions in scientific realism
Reality is out there
Yet it is only objectively observable to a limited extent: “there are enduring
structures and generative mechanisms underlying and producing observable
phenomena”
These underlying structures can be observed via their manifestations in the
observable reality
Observation of these is based on, and informed by theory
Key assumptions in interpretivism
There is a fundamental difference between the social world and the natural world as
an object of research
The researcher and the object of study are connected because our understanding of
reality is never outside language
What is there to know can only be known ‘through the eye of the beholder’
What we observe are constructions that result from the interaction between
researcher and research object
Cause and effect at best can be understood in terms of
‘mutual simultaneous shaping’
Positivist aim: explaining. Interpretivist aim: understand and reflect. Scientific realist aim:
understand and explain.
, Bij ontologie vragen we onszelf “Is er zoiets als een objectieve realiteit?” Is er zoiets als een
echte wereld? Iets wat altijd waar is, ongeacht wie het meemaakt.
Voorbeeld: Is discriminatie iets objectiefs?
Positivisten zullen altijd zeggen, dat dit er zeker is (voorbeeld van stoel)
Interpretivisten zeggen dat er niet zoiets is als één objectieve wereld.
Bij epistemologie onderzoek je wat de aard van de relatie is tussen de onderzoeker en de
realiteit, het fenomeen dat plaatsvindt.
Positivisten zullen zeggen: het maakt niet uit wie dit onderzoekt, je zult tot dezelfde
conclusie komen.
Interpretivisten zeggen dat de positie van een onderzoeker altijd invloed zal hebben
op het standpunt.
Kwantitatief zit vaak meer richting het positivisme, interpretivisme zit vaak dichter bij het
kwalitatieve.
Types of research questions
Descriptive questions:
What/ who/ where/ when?
Focus on the characteristics of actors/ events/ developments/ etc.
Explanatory questions:
Why? How does X determine Y?
Focus on cause-effect relations
Normative:
What ought to be the case?
Moral reasoning
Descriptive:
What percentage of people votes in the general election in European countries?
Explanatory
Why do people vote: which factors affect voting?
o Positivist/ realist take on causation: identified by the researcher on the basis
of theory and/ or observation
What motivations do people have to vote?
o Interpretivist take on causation: can be understood from the internal reasons
shared by respondents.
Normative
Why should people vote?
Criteria research question
1. Open question (no yes/ no answer possible)
2. Descriptive or explanatory
