Introduction
Positivism and interpretivism are two paradigms applied in research methods where they provide methods of data collection and analysis strategies (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017 p.1). Interpretive paradigm involves a series of activities aimed at emphasizing the significant nature of individuals’ traits and participation in social and cultural aspects (Chilisia and Kawulich, n.d p.10). Interpretivism indicates that research methods utilize ideas based on people’s awareness of reality, experience and background hence it distinctively overrules methods of natural sciences (Chilisia and Kawulich, n.d). The Interpretivist paradigm expresses its methodology via relationship between researchers and participants (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017 p.8). In a positivist paradigm philosophical knowledge is deeply rooted in science and mathematics so that, whatever exists can be verified through experiments, observation and mathematics or logical proof objectives are achieved using observation and reasoning aimed at comprehending human behavior (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017 p.5). Positivism utilizes observation and experiments as methods of obtaining information (Thanh and Thanh, 2015). According to Chilisia and Kawulich (n.d p.2), the difference between positivism and interpretivism is seen in methodology adopted where the latter uses quantitative methodology while former applies qualitative methodology. Positivism believes in application of scientific methods, sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic while interpretivism relies on experiences of other people. An understanding of the two paradigms is explained through, an analysis of research inclusion conducted in this paper.
The Interpretivist approach believes in subjective experiences, perceptions and background of participants (Thanh and Thanh, 2015) and that no tradition is correct or incorrect theory therefore, leaving judgement to the interest of researcher. The approach gains reality via interaction of social characteristics like language, shared beliefs among others. The Research focusing on racism by Gillborn, Vincent, Ball and Rollock (2012) applied an interpretivist approach since the topic is of interest to researchers because no such research was conducted prior. Selection of participants was done based on shared characteristic of being from black race thus fulfilling a rule of being an interpretivist approach.
Inclusion criteria of selecting parents, broke the rules of interpretivism as the researchers applied common selection method, example being selecting majority of participants to be mothers. Parents selected provided a wide range of inclusion thus fulfilling rules of interpretivist inclusion. Interpretivism rules were fulfilled since the type of data collected was based on parent’s experience and this was appropriate since they had firsthand information. The research used a qualitative method specifically key informant interviews to collect data hence fulfilling interpretivism rule of applying qualitative method in research (Makue, 2015). This method was most suitable as it allowed participants to provide enough details while, follow –up interviews facilitated a rich opportunity to include left out information.
Interpretivism rules were satisfied in analysis of data as methods applied hand coding and Nvivo software which are suitable analysis methods for qualitative data. Research on racism conducts in depth evaluation of the topic where the results are compared with previous works that are of interest to the topic. Understanding of the phenomena was done via meanings assigned by parents experience on the issue of race. Gillborn et al (2012) provided their own understanding based on analysis of information presented by subjects. The study is based on researchers’ judgement which eliminates tradition of theories therefore validating this work as an interpretivism approach.
Experiencing sense forms the foundation of actual knowledge which is acquired via observation and experimenting (Dash, n.d).The research as based on observation and filling of questionnaires therefore making it meet the criteria of being a part of positivism paradigm since positivism is verified by observation. Positivist rule states that the research approach should seek to identify an association between cause and effect of relationships thus, Reed, Osborne and Waddington (2012) research fulfils it through examining whether school surrounding of autistic children impact their social behavior. Positivism approach tend to make an interpretation of observations in terms of facts or measurable elements and Reed et al’s research complies to this aspect as it tries to interpret children’s behavior through measuring them using emotional and behavioral scores which are measured using subscales of strengths and difficulties questionnaire (Reed et al, 2012). A positivist approach is followed since inclusion criterion used involved children requiring specialized attention studying ASD autism in respect with behavior. The positivism rule dictates that information is obtained through experim
entation and observation and this is fulfilled by the research experimenting on behavior of autistic (specifically ASD) children enrolled in special schools, units as well as those in mainstream schools’.
Empiricism is applied where verified data is collected in order to examine the research problem. Empirical data was collected by teachers and parents based on their observation on conduct of ASD children. Data collected helped in providing answers to the research problem since the empirical data was reliable due to consistent observation. The data collected involved conduct of the children as well as assessment of their evaluation progress therefore qualifying the study as a positivism since this approach relies on information collected through observation, logical reasoning and experimentation.
The quantitative research method was utilized where strengths and difficulties reporting questionnaires were administered among parents and teachers who were in direct involvement with subjects. Application of quantitative methodology certifies the research as a positivism paradigm since it meets the rule which state that positivism utilizes quantitative methodology (Chilisia and Kawulich, n.d p.6). The method was appropriate as it facilitated acquisition of reliable experimental and observational data on behavior. Data analysis was conducted through calculation of scores which was then compared to baseline score therefore making it an appropriate comparative method as it provided an opportunity to identify changes in participants’ behavior. According to Kivunja and Kuyini (2017), one of the positivism characteristic is to focus on fulfillment of an objective search for facts and this research accomplishes it as it seeks to identify changes in children behavior. Teachers and parents are believed to have the ability of observing knowledge therefore, fitting description of the positivism rule of acquiring information through observation.
Inclusion criteria is the idea of adopting an all-inclusive societal approach during activities which involve analysis of characteristics. Reed et al’s study secures a chance for autistic children specifically those with ASD to attend special schools due to their advantage of providing social and emotional improvement. The inclusion criteria were established on the foundation of segregation and integration aspects. Gillborn et al (2012) research adopted an inclusion criterion of the black race and it provided an opportunity for parents of children within a set age bracket to participate in the study.
Positivism omits biasness and personal motivation on data since researchers are able to obtain data directly via observation. In the positivism approach views and opinions of professionals are considered but in Reed et al’s study this is hindered thus preventing their influence on data.
The data provided failed to depict in depth information since the questionnaires gave an opportunity for short replies as they are numerical data. Positivism fails to analyze characteristics of an individual’s performance but rather focuses on generalization. One of the weakness of positivism is that individual data is concealed behind numerical data.
The researcher is able to create a relationship with participants hence encouraging them to give information without withholding anything. The approach enabled an understanding of how racism as a social reality is constructed through meanings of various individuals. Interpretivism evaluated micro approaches which viewed individuals as one entailing entity and not a mere recipient of racism effects.
The reliability rate is low because participants provide information based on their experience and thus, they may add or omit crucial information. Researchers assumed that all individuals participate in racism activities and notions. Imposition of the researcher makes participants provide information that is of interest to them while subsiding other crucial data which is of relevance to the study.
Analysis of experiences provides a wide range of information that aids in explain the pressure faced by parents who are from minority ethnic groups. Interpretivism helps in giving details of challenges black middle-class families undergo as they maneuver through white-dominated education system. Interpretivist paradigm aids in understanding various educational strategies implemented to promote education for all races. Various navigation methods of education systems used by parents of minority ethnic groups are able to be identified through interpretivism approach. Interpretivism has evaluated educational perspectives, strategies and experiences of Black –Caribbean-heritage middle class families therefore giving an overview of what minority ethnic group goes through.
The Positivist approach brought clarity of how schools have no significant impact on progress of ASD children. Academic outcomes of ASD children were similar despite their school placement hence this approach brought an understanding that, schools bring no difference in academic progress as well as behavior. Positivism portrayed the importance of special schools thus eliminating the issue of dismissing them. The approach helped to bring an understanding of the benefits of school placement on social and emotional behavior.
Basically, both approaches were able to bring an understanding of their aspects through answering of the different aims of the research. The two approaches fulfill different things as positivism is able to gather and evaluate empirical data through experimentation while interpretivism explains data through personal experiences which are suitable for the research.
Interpretivist concepts and ideas are obtained through deep evaluation of the topic of interest whereas positivism paradigm, examines social reality through observation and reasoning with an aim of understanding human behavior. Interpretivism provided subjective data as individuals were given an opportunity to express their intuition and opinion. The interpretivist research may have failed to achieve generalization as individuals had different experiences. Objectivity was maintained in positivism as observation safe guarded against understanding reasons behind activities. Inaccuracy was one element that positivism was prone to, as a result of collective data #analysis thus bringing distortion of reality and truth.
References
Chilisia.B and Kawulich. B. (n.d). Selecting a research approach: paradigm, methodology and methods.
Dash. N.K. (n.d). Module: Selection of the Research Paradigm and Methodology. Manchester Metropolitan University.
Gillborn. D, Vincent. C, Ball. S and Rollock. N. (2012). The Educational Strategies of the Black Middle Classes. The Politicization of Parenthood: Shifting private and public responsibilities in education and child rearing. Pp. 139-152.
Kivunja. C and Kuyini. A. B (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education. Vol.6, No. 5.
Makue. I. (2015). Research Design and Methodology
Reed.P, Osborne.L.A and Waddington.E. (2012). The role of educational placement, educational provision and parents on the school performance of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Swansea University.
Thanh. N. C and Thanh. T. L. (2015). The Interconnection between Interpretivist paradigm and Qualitative Methods in Education. American Journal of Educational Science. Vol 1, No. 2. Pp. 24-27.