Positivism vs Interpretivism in Research

Worldviews of Research Philosophy

Introduction

Ontology, epistemology and axiology are at the foundation of research philosophy. Ontology is the study of the nature of being. Epistemology is the study of knowledge or how one comes to know things. Axiology is the study of the nature of values. Being, knowledge and values are intimately connected in business research, because they set the stage for how one will ultimately collect and analyze the data that will be used in research. They are what help to shape the worldview of the researcher. Worldviews of research philosophy fall into one of four main categories: positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and realism. Each research philosophy comes with its own set of underlying ideas and propositions and has its own strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons. This paper describes those underlying ideas, strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, and how worldviews of research have influenced business and organizational research in the past. It also discusses which worldview tends to dominate in the area of business research.

Underlying Ideas and Propositions

The term “research philosophy” refers simply to the “system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge” (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 124). It is important to consider the underlying ideas and propositions of one’s research philosophy because by engaging in research, one creates new knowledge—and one’s assumptions and beliefs about how to do that can shape the outcomes associated with the research. For instance, one’s values and views on how one knows reality can determine the methods one uses in research, which in turn determine the type of data one collects and how one analyzes that data. That methodology in turn can affect the degree to which and the type of knowledge that is created in the end result.

It is not expected that any researcher ever sets out to conduct research without a set of assumptions. On the contrary, by identifying and defining one’s assumptions, the researcher establishes a base of credibility for his own research (Saunders et al., 2009). Understanding one’s own beliefs, assumptions and values, however, depends upon the possession of the skill of reflexivity (Pillow, 2003). Reflexivity is what enables one to identify and assess the underlying ideas and propositions shaping one’s worldview and how they might affect one’s research. When it comes to business and management research, there are many underlying ideas and propositions that actually clash with one another, leading researchers to adopt philosophies of research that drastically alter the derivation of new knowledge in the field.

Two perspectives on business management that have emerged over the years are the pluralist and the unificationist perspectives. The pluralist worldview holds that diverse views are helpful to the field; unificationists hold that fragmentation of views prevents the field from advancing in a meaningful and coherently scientific manner (Saunders et al., 2009). For the sake of understanding the historical impact of views, a pluralist perspective is often adopted.

Views on the nature of reality, how knowledge is derived, and what values are important also play a significant role in the shaping of research philosophies. For instance, early researchers in business management assumed that resistance to change constituted an obstacle that should be eliminated; later researchers adopted a different ontological position on the matter and viewed resistance to change within an organization as inherently organic and as something to be harnessed so as to rethink change management modeling rather than as something to be eliminated altogether (Saunders et al., 2009; Kotter, 2012).

Views on the nature of knowledge are also important. Facts, statistics, interpretations, stories, direct experience—all of this contributes to knowledge. Yet some research philosophers gear towards one certain type of facts. For instance, positivists lean toward statistical data and quantitative research because this offers an objective and verifiable conclusion. However, it also means that the knowledge is going to be limited and somewhat narrower than the kind of complex and rich knowledge that could be obtained through qualitative research. Thus, underlying one’s worldview is a sense of how one thinks of knowledge and the types of knowledge one seeks.

Views on values also shape worldview. A researcher who wants to focus on interviewing participants in a research study signals that he values personal communication and interaction more highly than quantitative data that might be obtain impersonally through a survey. Another researcher might value empirical research and this will incline him to want to adopt a quantitative approach to research.

Strengths and Weaknesses, Pros and Cons

The strengths of positivism are that it focuses on producing objective, verifiable results. It typically begins with a hypothesis and proceeds with an experiment designed to obtain enough data that the hypothesis may be accepted or rejected. This research philosophy usually leads to studies that can be duplicated by following the methodology. For companies looking for verifiable, statistical data, positivism represents a suitable research philosophy. Its main weakness is that it does not support exploratory research; if one does not already have a hypothesis in mind, it is unlikely to be a useful starting point in research. It is also narrow in its conception and does not support a complex, rich narrative that can help to explain the various nuances of an organization. The pros of this philosophy are that it supports objectivity and statistical analysis. The cons of this philosophy are that it does not support more in-depth analysis or interpretive approaches to research. Thus, for a researcher simply looking to understand or explore an issue in an organization, positivism offers little (Saunders et al., 2009).

The strengths of interpretivism are that it allows the researcher to adopt an exploratory approach to research. There is no need to begin with an hypothesis; in many cases, the hypothesis is constructed at the end of the research, after the assembling of data and the analysis is completed. Interpretivism can lead to knowledge that will generate hypotheses that can later be tested. The weakness of interpretivism is that it is mainly subjective and relies on the interpretations of the researcher; it is more difficult to duplicate and verify the study because the sample sizes are usually smaller and unique. It is also not necessarily true that information from an interpretivist approach can be applied generally throughout an industry. The pros of this philosophy are that it helps researchers who want to explore an issue or problem without having a ready-made hypothesis at hand. The cons of this philosophy are that it does not always offer the kind of objective knowledge that an organization or business might want when it comes time to make decisions (Saunders et al., 2009).

The strengths of realism are that it provides a middle way between positivism and interpretivism. It can draw on archival research and present a more complicated view of an issue while simultaneously providing some objective data that can support statistical analysis. This philosophy posits that facts are merely social constructions and that bias by worldview and cultural experience shape how knowledge is perceived. It adopts a relativistic epistemological approach to knowledge and therefore embraces a wide range of research methodologies for those interested in studying systems. The weakness of this philosophy is that it often requires extensive, time-consuming research in order to present a full, realistic picture of what is going on in an organization with respect to the problem being addressed. The pros of realism are that it serves to bridge objective and subjective experiences to create a fuller sense of an organization’s complexity. The cons of realism are that its lack of simplicity can frustrate rather than assist decision making when it comes to adopting a big picture perspective (Saunders et al., 2009).

The strengths of pragmatism are that, like realism, it also supports a mixed-methods approach to research and can combine quantitative with qualitative analysis. It focuses on providing knowledge that can be used in the real world and defines knowledge as that which leads to successful outcomes. Its focus is not so much on why something occurs but how a problem can be fixed (Saunders et al., 2009). It thus supports a problem-solving approach to research. Its main weakness is its inability to explain why a solution works in some cases but not in others. It supports value-driven research and depends upon the reflexivity of the researcher. If this is lacking in the researcher, pragmatism may not supply an adequate worldview. The pros of this philosophy are that it supports identifying a research problem and posing a research question. The cons of this philosophy are that it focuses only on practical applications of knowledge and not on developing a theoretical understanding of universals.

How Worldviews of Research Influenced Business Research

Worldviews of research have influenced business research in myriad ways in the past. For instance, worldviews on leadership are what led to the idea of the Great Man Thesis (Spencer, 1896). As worldviews change, ideas on leadership subsequently changed with them, and gave ground to new ideas such as trait theory (Sanders, 2006; Stogdill, 1948; Cacamis & El Asmar, 2014). This shift came about as organizations sought to promote individuals who might serve as good leaders; they wanted to identify traits that could make leaders recognizable. But other researchers adopted different philosophies, such as realism and pragmatism, and thus determined that a leader’s effectiveness will depend on the environment in which he is situated (Northouse, 2015). Over time, worldviews thus shape research in many ways. Other instances include the development of scientific management by Taylor (1914), the impact of culture on an organization, and how motivation plays a part in management (Maslow, 1943; Schein, 2017). One worldview that dominates today is that of positivism, especially with the arrival machine learning and algorithmic-driven analysis. Managers want statistical inputs for problem-solving, and they rely on quantitative research to facilitate this process.