Interpretivism and Positivism in Healthcare and Life Sciences Research (Essay Sample)

Interpretivism and Positivism in Healthcare and Life Sciences Research
Name
Institution
Date
Interpretivism and Positivism in Healthcare and Life Sciences Research
Interpretivism and positivism are the fundamental research methods approach in sociology. It can, however, be applied to other fields like Healthcare and Life Sciences Research. These two are dominant epistemological and ontological paradigms. Epistemology is described as the link between the researcher and the reality or the way in which the reality is known or captured. Ontology is the nature of reality. This essay discusses some of the differences between epistemology and positivism.
Positivism is taken to mean the scientific approach. The methods that are used are well organized, can be measured and are founded on the approaches that have been taken by the scientific community. This community is most often involved in examining behaviors within nature. Positivist ontology asserts that the world is external. It also holds that there is only one objective reality that can be attached to any research situation or phenomenon. This is often independent of the views and perspectives of the researcher. In this case, research is conducted through controlled and structural approaches by the identification of precise research topics, the construction of the correct hypotheses, and adopting a well suited research methodology.
The positivist researchers are often detached from the study participants. They effectively create the detachment by creating distance. This move is critical as it helps the researcher to maintain a position that is emotionally neutral. They are also able to keep a clear separation of feelings from reason, science from personal experience, and fact from value judgment. Positivists have to pursue objectivity and make use of research approaches that are consistently rational and logical.
Central to positivist research is statistical and mathematical techniques. This research paradigm relies on research techniques that have been specifically structured to unveil single and objective reality. Making generalizations that are free from time and context is the primary purpose of the positivist research. The researchers believe it is possible since human actions are explainable as a result of actual causes which are temporarily precedent to their behavior. As such, the researcher and the research subjects do not depend on or influence one another. There is a clear distinction between this paradigm, which emphasizes objectivity together with rational and logical research approaches, and interpretism.
Contrary to positivism, interpretism, concerning ontology and epistemology, implies that reality is multiple and relative. The multiple realities are also dependent on other systems for their meanings. They are therefore very challenging to interpret regarding fixed realities. In this research methodology, the knowledge gained is not objectively determined as in the case of positivism but is constructed socially.
The interpretists avoid rigid structural frameworks like the ones common in positivist research. Instead, they adopt a more flexible and personal structure for their researches. Their research structures are receptive to the capturing of human interactions. They are devoted to making sense of the perceived reality. This paradigm comes with a belief that the researcher and the participants are interdependent and interactive in a complementary manner. As the interpretivist researcher gets into the field, he or she is already armed with the prior insight of the context of the research. However, they often assume that the insight is not enough for the development of a fixed study design. The insufficiency is as a result of the multiple, complex and unpredictable nature of what people perceive as reality.
The researchers are often ready to receive any new knowledge all through their research. They let the new knowledge with the assistance of the informants. The interpretivists believe that all humans can adapt. Unlike positivists, they believe that there is no way of gaining prior knowledge about social realities that are time and context bound.
In contrast to positivist research, whose goal is to predict and generalize causes and effects, the interpretivist research seeks to interpret and understand human behavior. The interpretivist researcher needs to understand the meanings, motives, reasons and other subjective experiences. Time and context bind these aspects.
There is a clear distinction between positivism and interpretivism regarding research methods. Researchers who prescribe to the positivist research methods have diverse views to those who use the interpretivist methods of research. The differences can be summarized in a table as shown in Table 1.
Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1: Ontological and Epistemiological differences between interpretivism and positivism (Source: Carson et al., 2001).
Ontology

Positivist

Interpretivist

Nature of the world (‘being’)

Can directly access the real world

Lack direct access to the real world

Reality

There is a single external reality

There is no single external reality

Epistemology



Knowledge ‘grounds’ (link between research and reality)

It is possible to gain solid, secure and objective knowledge

Are understood through perceived knowledge


Research focusses on generalizing and abstracting

Focus of research is in the specific and concrete


Stated theories and hypotheses govern thought

Main aim is to understand specific context

Methodology