The positivist approach relies on quantitative methods like experiments and statistical analysis to test hypotheses and discover generalizable truths. It assumes an objective reality can be observed and measured. The interpretivist approach uses qualitative methods like interviews and case studies to understand phenomena within their specific contexts. It sees reality as socially constructed and allows for multiple perspectives. Both approaches agree research aims to generate new knowledge but diverge on their methods and philosophical assumptions.

1. UNI VERSI TY OF EDUCATI ON, WI NNEBA
F ACULTY OF SOCI AL SCI ENCES
DEPARTMENT OF POLI TI CAL SCI ENCE EDUCATI ON( M.ED)
Date:24th August, 2020
Course Title:Research Methods in Political Science
Course Code:POLI 704
Course I nstructor:Dr. Clottey
Student Name:Samuel Mojom
I ndex Number:1054674
COMPARE AND CONTRAST( THE SI MI LARI TI ES AND DI F F ERENCES
BETWEEN) THE POSI TI VI ST AND I NTERPRETI VI ST RESEARCH APPROACHES

2. I ntroduction
The inssersant pursuit of knowledge and the sense of curiosity that characterizes it
achievers sets the pace and tone for research. Numerous studies in Psychology have
shown that the behaviour of man is not static but in a constant flux and as such, for
anyone to understand nature and man in part, investigation and questioning would be
the necessary evil to work with. However, the concerns of the researcher would be to
chose what phenomenon to study, how to conduct the study, what data to collect and
finally on howto communicate his findings hence the need for this paper tobringtobear,
the existingtheories or paradigms in research
Research as opined by Redman and Mory ( 1923) is a systematic effort to gain new
knowledge. Singh ( 2006) reviewing the work of Clifford Woody, defined research as a
field consisting of making informed guess, gathering, organizing and analyzing data to
make deductions and todrawconclusions.
The field of research in effect does not have a single objective, as different individual
researchers, academic institutions, governmental and nongovernmental organizations
invest time and capital resources into it for peculiar reasons includingbut not limited to;
 to describe in near-acurate terms the characteristics of an individual, situation or
phenomenon
 tounravel the casual relationship between variables
 toevaluate the success or failure of an adopted and implemented policy
 tosolve an emergingpublic problem
Scope of the paper
There exist several dynamics in the field of research which are worth considering.
However, this workpiece seeks to explore and to bring to the attention of readers the
various fundamental theories and approaches of research which include; Rationalism,
Empiricism, Structuralism, Positivism ,I nterpretivism, Scientific Realism, Post-
Modernism and Pragmatism.
I t is imperative to note that this paper would further narrow down to two competing
paradigms, that is, Positivism and I nterpretivism ( Kuhn, 1962) by reviewing scholarly
works and other internet resources ( secondary research) to help understand their

3. divergence( differences) and Convergence ( similarities).
To better understand the theoretical viewpoints of the proponents of the two approaches,
the paper focuses on achieving that relative to the three main concepts of the
Philosophy of Science which are Ontology that explains the nature and form of
truth/reality, Epistemology which centres on what is believed to be acceptable and last
but not list, Methodology which focuses on how to find new knowledge or test what is
believed tobe reality ( Weber R. cited in Soleymani, 2017).
The Positivists Research Approach
A notable proponent of Positivism was David Hume ( 1711-1776) who was a Scottish
Enlightenment Philosopher, Economist and Essayist in his work on empiricism,
skepticism and naturalism asserted that, science and for that matter the systematic
way of knowing about our world is " by observation, measurement and recording ". His
work believed that observation and measurement is the core of any scientific endeavor
and to this effect, any field or phenomenon that cannot be subjected to regurous
observation ( experimentation) and measurement ( statistical testability) is not
sciences.
Research conducted based on the Positivist approach would mostly be built around a
hypothesis-an educated or pre-informed guess about a phenomenon or problem to be
studied. Statistical analysis would then be utilized in order to make meaning and make
inferences from the data collected through complex mathematical procedures like null-
hypothesis testing, chi-square, correlation and regression analysis. Crowther and
Lancaster ( 2008) concluded that, using statistical analysis, a researcher can make
deductions and present results as it is without any influence from the personal beliefs
and values of the researcher.
The Ontology of Positivism stresses on universalism which is a philosophical and
theological concept that some ideas have universal or general laws that are applicable
in all human endeavours ( Park, 1988).
I nferringfrom this positivist assertion, Burrhus F rederic Skinner ( 1904-1990) a famous
American Psychologist who recieved the National Medal of Science award ( 1968)
postulated that, psychology should duel only on the positive and negative reinforcers of
behavior so as to forecast what an individual would do and react to similar stimulus in

4. the future. The singleness and tangibility of phenomenon coupled with the unique
description would always help to elicit a predictive behaviour when observed and
measure followingthe scientific methods.
The I nterpretivists which are also referred to exponents of Negativism hold a divergent
view to the aforementioned believes. This brings us to the second approach known as
I nterpretivism.
The I nterpretivist ( anti-positivism, negativism) Research Approach
I nterpretivism derived its nomenclature from Hermeneutics which is about the
interpretation of theological or biblical extracts, philosophical concepts and literary
works of wisdom ( Zimmermann, 2015). The paper would rather contextualize
hermeneutics as the methodology of interpreting research findings which has become
the core of interpretivism.
I t is imperative to note that the central argument of the early interpretivists is that,
inasmuch as the conduct of research on human behaviors is crafted by a fellowhuman,
it is then practically impossible to conclude on findings which would be value-free, bias-
free and topass the objectivity litmus test purported by positivism.
Levine ( 1971) in his review of Georg Simmel on "individuality of Social F orms",
described the early German Sociologists like Max Weber and the F rankfort School as
championing th call for interpretivism as a research approach. He again asserted that,
interpretivist approach is about the systematic way by which an outside observer tries to
identify with a peculiar cultural group through the adaptation to their norms, values,
beliefs and viewpoint so as to understand and interpret their actions.
A notable proponent of anti-positivism was Jurgen Habermas ( 1967) , a German
Sociologist and Philosopher who strongly opposed the positivists idea of a unified body
of scientific enquiry that characterized the natural sciences. He further postulated that,
the social sciences which deal with humans can only make meaning in research by
"situation-specific understanding" through interpretation.
Working on their Doctorial Thesis on Educational Science, Nguyen Cao and Tran Thi Le
( 2015) reviewing Willis ( 2007) asserted that interpretivist approach mostly deals with
the understanding of specific context, and the prime belief of reality being socially
produced. Sabberwal also looked into Willis ( 2007) and remarked that the

5. interpretivists unlike Positivists who often look for the discovery of general and critical
theory or rules, rather accept and seek multiple perspectives which open them up to
changes relative totime.
Another point of divergence between the two research approaches is that, whereas the
positivists argue for any study to be based on quantitative presentation of results, the
interpretivits rather engage in qualitative methods of analyzing the behavior of their
subjects ( Silverman, 2000). I t is also argued that an interpretivist throws his weight on
qualitative methods such as working with case study, in depth interviews, focus group
discussion and ethnography so as to understand the phenomenon being studied ( Willis,
2007).
I n the support of Silverman's assertion, McQueen ( 2002) expounded the use of
qualitative techniques by anti - positivists due to their quest to understand the deep
relationship between man and his environment and his contributions to realize the
social fabric he inhabits.
I nferring from the above reviewed scholarly works, one can conclude that educational
researchers wanting to understand the factors underpinning the actions and inactions
of a group of people have to fall on the qualitative methods as best-suited approach as
suggested by Creswell ( 2009).
Thin similarities between the I nterpretivists and Positivists approach
Touchingon a likely similarity existingbetween the two research approaches, little could
be said about that due to a clear fact that they are two separate and opposingparadigms
from different schools of thought. However, the approaches could converge loosely as
they both agree that new knowledge can only be derived through purposeful research
findings. Also, both approaches imploy the researcher to identity a problem, ask
meaningful questions about the problem, gather data, analyze and present results
notwithstandingthe approach adopted.
Conclusion
This paper has explored the various theories and paradigms of research by focusing on
the interpretivists and Positivists approaches which utilize qualitative and quantitative
methods respectively to understand their subjects. The theoretical framework of the
paper is the argument that, the purpose and objective of an intended research findings

6. would inform the researcher in adopting any of the approaches expounded. Data
through experiments, surveys and transformed into numbers and summarized as mean,
mode, standard deviations and graphs become useful when followingpositivism whereas
most social sciences, humanities and ethics-oriented field researchers observe from
inside using focus group discussion, in depth interviews and case study as purported by
interpretivism.

7. References
Redman, L.V. and Mory A.V.H ( 1934). "The Romance of Research". J. Chem.
Edu.1934,11,1,62
retrieved 20/8/2020 from www.https://doi.org/10.1021/ed011p62.1
Singh, Y.K. ( 2006). " F undamentals of Research Methodology and Statistics ". NewAge
I nternational, NewDelhi
Soleymani, S. ( 2017) on Positivism vrs I nterpretivism.
retrieved 20/8/2020 from www.https://medium.com/@Saber/Positivism-vrs-
interpretivisim-in-research-1299e4687a.
Weber, R. ( 2004). Editor's Comments:The Rhetoric of Positivism versus I nterpretivism:
A personal view.MI S Quarterly 28( 1), page xi
Crowther, D.and Lancaster G. ( 2008). " Research Methods:A concise introduction to
Research in Management and Business Consultancy ". Butterworth-Heinemann
Park, P. ( 1988). " Toward an Emancipatory Sociology:AbandoningUniversalism for
True I ndigenization. I nternational Sociology 3( 2), 161-170, 1988. Sage Journals
Kuhn, T. ( 1962)."Structure of Scientific Revolutions ". University of ChicagoPress,
London. I SBN:9780226458113
Skinner, B.F .( n.d). I n Alleydog.com's online glossary/definition-cit-php?term=B.F .S
UKEssays. ( November 2018). Compare and Contrast Positivism and I nterpretivism.
retrieved 20/8/2020 from www.https://ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/critical-
comparison-of-positivist-and-interpretivist-espitemologic-philisophy-essay.php?vref=1
Zimmermann, J. ( 2015). Hermeneutics:A Very Short I ntroduction. Oxford University
Press. P.2.
Levine, D. ( ed) 'Simmel', On I ndividuality and Social F orms'. ChicagoPress, 1971.p.6.

8. Jurgen, H. ( 1967). " On the Logic of the Social Sciences, translated by Shierry Weber
Nicholson and Jerry A. Stark. The MI P Press, Cambridge, MA and London. Sage
Nguyen, C.T.and Tran, T.L.T.( 2015)."The I nterconnectivity Between I nterpretivist
Paradigm and Qualitative Methods in Education. American Journal of Educational
Science. Vol.1.No.2, 2015. pp.24-27. Retrieved 21/8/2020 from
http://www.aiscience.org/journal/ajes.
Willis, J.W. ( 2007). F oundations of Qualitative Research:I nterpretive and Critical
approaches. London. Sage.
Creswell, J.W. ( ed). ( 2009). Research Design; Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Methods Approaches ( 3rd ed). Los Angeles. Sage.
McQueen, M. ( 2002). Language and Power in Profit/non-profi Relationships:A grounded
Theory of I nter-sectorial Collaboration. Retrieved 22/8/2020, from
http://www.au.GeoCities.com/dr_meryl_mcqueen/phd/mcqueen-ch3.htm.