Interpretivism

Often contrasted with Positivism is Interpretivism. The starting point for Interpretivism – which is sometimes called Anti-Positivism – is that knowledge in the human and social sciences cannot conform to the model of natural science because there are features of human experience that cannot objectively be “known”. This might include emotions; understandings; values; feelings; subjectivities; socio-cultural factors; historical influence; and other meaningful aspects of human being. Instead of finding “truth” the Interpretivist aims to generate understanding and often adopts a relativist position.

Qualitative methods are preferred as ways to investigate these phenomena. Data collected might be unstructured (or “messy”) and correspondingly a range of techniques for approaching data collection have been developed. Interpretivism acknowledges that it is impossible to remove cultural and individual influence from research, often instead making a virtue of the positionality of the researcher and the socio-cultural context of a study.

One key consideration here is the purported validity of qualitative research. Interpretivism tends to emphasize the subjective over the objective. If the starting point for an investigation is that we can’t fully and objectively know the world, how can we do research into this without everything being a matter of opinion? Essentially Positivism and Interpretivism retain different ontologies and epistemologies with contrasting notions of rigour and validity (in the broadest rather than statistical sense). Interpretivist research often embraces a relativist
epistemology, bringing together different perspectives in search of an overall understanding or narrative.

Kivunja & Kuyini (2017) describe the essential features of Interpretivism as:

• The admission that the social world cannot be understood from the standpoint of an individual
• The belief that realities are multiple and socially constructed
• The acceptance that there is inevitable interaction between the researcher and his or her research participants
• The acceptance that context is vital for knowledge and knowing.
• The belief that knowledge is created by the findings, can be value laden and the values need to be made explicit
• The need to understand the individual rather than universal laws
• The belief that causes and effects are mutually interdependent
• The belief that contextual factors need to be taken into consideration in any systematic pursuit of understanding

Interpretivism as a research paradigm is often accompanied by Constructivism as an ontological and epistemological grounding. Many learning theories emphasize Constructivism as an organising principle, and Constructivism often underlies aspects of educational research.

Interpretivist Methods: Case Studies; Conversational analysis; Delphi; Description; Document analysis; Interviews; Focus Groups; Grounded theory; Phenomenography; Phenomenology; Thematic analysis

[INSERT Figure 2]

methodological aspects of Positivism and Interpretivism.
Positivism Interpretivism
Ontology
Being in the world Direct access (Naturalism) Indirect access (Idealism)
Reality Objective, accessible Subjectively experienced
Epistemology
Relation between knowledge
and reality
Objective knowledge of the
world is possible supported by
appropriate method
Objective knowledge of the
world is possible supported by
appropriate method
Epistemological goals Generalisation, abstraction,
discovery of law-like
relationships
Knowledge of specific,
concrete cases and examples
Basic approach Hypothesis formation and
testing
Describing and seeking to
understand phenomena in
context
Methodology
Focus Description and explanation Understanding and
interpretation
Research Perspective Detached, objective Embedded in the phenomena
under investigation
Role of emotions Strict separation between the
cognitions and feeling of the
researchers
Emotional response can be
part of coming to
understanding
Limits of researcher influence Discovery of external,
objective reality – minimal
influence
Object of study is potentially
influenced by the activity of
the researcher
Valued approaches Consistency, clarity,
reproducibility, rationality, lack
of bias
Insight, appreciation of context
and prior understanding
Fact/value distinction Clear distinction between facts
and values
Distinction is less rigid,
acknowledges entanglement
Archetypal research methods Quantitative
(e.g. statistical analysis)
Qualitative
(e.g. case study)
Figure 2. Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology across Positivism and Interpretivism
(adapted from Carson et al., 2001)