In terms of 'research' can u explain positivist and interpretivist?

Question

In terms of 'research' can u explain positivist and interpretivist?

Answer 1

The Positivist View.

From the positivist view, the starting point of interactionism is wrong. To provide explanations based only upon the in-depth analysis of individuals or processes uncovered by observing group interactions is just a descriptive exercise. The quality of data is equal to that given by a journalist or novelist, interestng to read but tells us nothing about the causes of our behaviour. These 'casual relationships' can only be discovered by analysing the social structure in which behaviour takes place. The scientific methods which positivists are so keen on is all about discerning patterns in the data collected, and locating the reasons for these patterens within the wider framework of society. Positivists wish to rise above the merely subjective, descriptive data which interactionist sociology provides, to identify patterns and their underlying senses and therefore establish general laws which can be used to predict (and manipulate!) future behaviour. Positivists look for 'structural switches' which turn the lights on and off. They claim that they deal in 'hard facts', whereas interactionists provide publications closer to fiction than hard science. Objective, social facts are taken as hard evidence to back up theoretical assumptions. Subjective reports of experience and maeaning are discarded as interesting but irrelevant. Positivists believe that it is pointless to rely on reprted experiences, because the people involved are not aware of the extent to which their lives and actions are influenced by constraining factors within the social structure.

The Interactionis View.

On the other hand, the interactionists are critical of the positivist stress oupon 'social facts'. To base all of your explanatoins upon official statistics or questionnaires, the interactionsts say, is to ignore the ways in which the type of data is constructed, that is by human beings who bring their interpretations and meaning systems to bear upon the very construction of the so-called facts. If this'hard evidence' is created by humans who use their own experiences and fellings in the process, then the starting point for analysis has to be in that proces. To ignore the human factor is to provide false explanations. The classic example here is the inevitability of suicide. Durkheim's (1897) analysis of the official statistics is regarded by positivists as a masterpiece of sociological enquiry. Durkheim argues that rigorousanalysis and comparison of the official suicide statistics provide 'social facts'. But according to interactionism, tey are social facts compiled by humans- doctors, coroners, the police and the families and friends of the dead person- who all have an axe to grind. Taking these official statistics at face calue, they argue, is to ignore the interactive processes which contribute to their creation.

Positivists claim that examining human interactions in 'micro detail' is not 'proof' in the scientific sense. Each study is merely descriptive because the sample is small and unrepresentative; no genralisations can be made and therefore no laws established. According to interactionists, positivist methods, which attempt to applyu science to the study of society, are innapprpriate because people do not react like substance in their own natural sciences. People react, reflect on theiir own behaviour, have awareness and cosciousness of their existence, and therefore explanations for the patterns of their lives can never be found using the cold objective approach of the scientists.