Positivism vs. Interpretivism: Why the Debate Persists

Introduction and Weber's Challenge

The following declaration by Weber frames the central concern of this paper:

"For my part, however, I no longer want to be labeled as a positivist researcher or an interpretive researcher. It is time for us to move beyond labels and to see the underlying unity in what we are trying to achieve via our research methods. The commonalities in my view are compelling and paramount. We ought to celebrate them because they underpin the value of our role as scholars. The differences, on the other hand, are ancillary. We should understand them, but they should not divide us. The challenge for us now is to rethink and develop a new rhetoric so we come to a deeper understanding of the metatheoretical assumptions that underlie our research." (Weber, 2004, X)

Weber's declaration is at the heart of this paper's examination. The paper attempts to gauge the frameworks of three articles in relation to Weber's concerns and ideas. Weber contends that the debate between positivism and interpretivism is unnecessary and ultimately hampers research. The paper seeks to test the frameworks of these articles to determine which ideas, or combination of ideas, best explains why this debate continues to persist. Ultimately, the paper argues that it is the combination of Realistic Conflict Theory and Perspective Making and Taking that works best to provide an explanation for the debate's continued existence.

Weber also states his own thoughts regarding why the debate exists at all and continues to flourish in the research community:

"I suspect that one major reason has been the difficulties positivists have in understanding the arcane language used by some interpretivists — language that is rooted in the works of certain philosophers. If in the first place one does not understand clearly the alleged differences between positivism and interpretivism, it is easy to understand why one engages in any debunking exercise with some fear and trepidation… if we used simple language rather than arcane language when we engaged in discourse. I remain concerned that the enduring rhetoric reflects another problem. Specifically… all of us are affected by biases and prejudices of some sort when we evaluate another colleague's work. We cannot avoid them. To the extent we are reflexive researchers, however, hopefully we have developed self-awareness of some of our biases and prejudices. We then can take steps to mitigate their effects." (Weber, 2007, X–XI)

One of the initial problems with the debate, then, is that people do not fully understand the terms themselves. There is a great deal of confusion and presumption regarding what positivism and interpretivism actually mean. Not knowing what the terms mean definitively serves as a deterrent to engaging with — let alone dismantling or ceasing — the debate. Weber aptly suggests keeping things simple. Researchers will encounter enough difficulty and challenge as part of the research process without compounding matters with unnecessary terminological complexity. Weber also supports cultivating awareness of individual and other kinds of biases rather than responding to them with fear. What is most important is to acknowledge and accept biases as a first step toward diminishing or limiting them; the worst thing to do would be to deny that biases exist at all.

The paper compares and contrasts three alternative theoretical rationales as explanatory mechanisms for why the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism has persisted.

Becker and Niehaves: An Epistemological Framework

The first rationale to be examined is offered by Becker and Niehaves (2007), whose study concerns Information Systems (IS) research. Their framework is organized around five foundational questions:

I. What is the object of cognition? (Ontological aspect)
II. What is the relationship between cognition and the object of cognition?
III. What is true cognition? (Concept of truth)
IV. Where does cognition originate?
V. By what means can cognition be achieved? (Methodological aspect). (Becker & Niehaves, 2007, p. 202)

Becker and Niehaves' framework supports Weber's final declarations about not being overly focused on differences. The first section of their paper discusses how an interdisciplinary approach and perspective is more viable as a research strategy. The graphic representation of their framework is contingent on the use and application of multiple theories, ideas, and concepts drawn from a variety of thinkers. Their approach is more integrative and holistic, making it broadly compatible with Weber's call to look beyond entrenched divisions.

Ashforth and Humphrey: Labeling Theory in Organizations

Ashforth and Humphrey argue for the use of labeling theory, which they explain as follows:

"An emerging theme in organizational behavior is that organizations are interpretive structures or frameworks… To act, an organizational member must come to some understanding of what various social objects — actions, individuals, events, groups, decisions, structures — mean within the organizational context. However, given the inherent ambiguity and multiple causes and forces acting on many social objects, meaning is elusive. Accordingly, meaning has been described as socially constructed and symbolically mediated as individuals attempt to resolve ambiguity by triangulating on a more or less shared interpretation of organizational experience. We argue that a critical vehicle for interpreting, organizing, and communicating experience within organizations, and in turn for guiding experience, is the label." (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997, p. 43)

Labeling theory may contribute to the linguistic complexity that Weber identifies as a major reason why the debate continues. Ashforth and Humphrey argue that labeling is necessary for clarity, but Weber would likely contend that, with respect to this particular debate, labeling theory has been applied in excess. Labeling theory is intended to provide clarity; however, in the context of the positivism versus interpretivism debate, Weber would argue that it has instead contributed clutter rather than resolution.

Conclusion: Why the Debate Persists

Conflict theory and the perspective making and taking theory are the best explanations for why the debate has continued. People do not take into account perspective enough, and Realistic Conflict Theory reflects a real dynamic: people are fighting over resources. Biases develop when there is competition over anything, and those biases in turn affect people's perspectives. Perspective is at the center of the debate. One perspective values positivism, another values interpretivism, and yet another values the debate itself.

Incessant debates that prove counterproductive are ultimately distractions from greater achievements that could otherwise be made — and this is essentially what Weber is arguing. The research community has, metaphorically speaking, bigger fish to fry rather than argue over which paradigm is superior, when clearly the use and awareness of both benefit the community far more than the debate over the two ever could.

References

Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1997). The ubiquity and potency of labeling in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 43–58.

Becker, J., & Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemological perspectives on IS research: A framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information Systems Journal, 17(2), 197–214.

Boland Jr., R., & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.

Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record, 43(3), 395–405.

Weber, R. (2008). The rhetoric of positivism vs. interpretivism: A personal view. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), III–XII.