A Review of key paradigms: positivism VS interpretivism

Abstract

This paper is aimed to explore key philosophical underpinnings of fundamental research paradigms with reference to Positivism and Interpretivism. It would Furthermore, outline and provide key interrelationships with the following: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Method. The paper followed a literature review process, and primarily supported by secondary research through inclusion and consideration of different peer reviewed academic papers relating to the subject as well as other publications such as books. Researchers can consider the fitness of each paradigm based on their research nature and context. This paper would support researchers to gain deeper understanding of the positivist and interpretivist paradigms. The interpretivist paradigm would enable researchers to gain further depth through seeking experiences and perceptions of a particular social context. The positivist paradigm on the other hand, would enable researchers to have more statistical reliance and generalisation leading to development of universal laws and findings.

Full text

Citation: Husam Helmi Alharahsheh & Abraham Pius, (2020). A Review of key paradigms: positivism VS interpretivism. Glob Acad J Humanit
Soc Sci; Vol-2, Iss-3 pp-1-2.
39
Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2020; 2(3) 39-43
DOI :
Av il ab le o nl ine a t ht tps:/ / g ajrc . c o m/ga j h ss
ISSN:2706-901X (P)
ISSN:2707-2576(O)
Review Article
A Review of key paradigms: positivism VS interpretivism
Husam Helmi Alharahsheh1, Abraham Pius2
1Lecturer in Business Management at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David - London and Senior visiting lecturer across
several UK and international Higher Education Institutions)
2Senior Lecturer in Business Management and other related fields), Consultancy. Arden University and Manchester
Metropolitan University (United Kingdom - London)
*Corresponding
Author
Husam Helmi
Alharahsheh
Article History
Received: 04.05.2020
Accepted: 25.05.2020
Published: 30.06.2020
Abstract: This paper is aimed to explore key philosophical underpinnings of
fundamental research paradigms with reference to Positivism and Interpretivism. It
would Furthermore, outline and provide key interrelationships with the following:
Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Method. The paper followed a literature
review process and primarily supported by secondary research through inclusion and
consideration of different peer reviewed academic papers relating to the subject as well
as other publications such as books. Researchers can consider the fitness of each
paradigm based on their research nature and context. This paper would support
researchers to gain deeper understanding of the positivist and interpretivist paradigms.
The interpretivist paradigm would enable researchers to gain further depth through
seeking experiences and perceptions of a particular social context. The positivist
paradigm on the other hand, would enable researchers to have more statistical reliance
and generalisation leading to development of universal laws and findings.
Keywords: Positivism, Interpretivism, research paradigm.
Copyright @ 2020: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non commercial use (NonCommercial, or CC-BY-NC) provided the original
author and source are credited.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this research is to explore key
philosophical underpinnings of fundamental
research paradigms with reference to Positivism and
Interpretivism. Furthermore, the research would
outline and provide key interrelationships with the
following:
- Ontology
- Epistemology
- Methodology
- Method
The research focus above would provide key
takings for researchers to consider one of the given
paradigms based on the nature of their research and
context.
According to several researchers that all
research carried out scientifically should be based
on several key fundamental philosophical
assumptions with consideration of the nature of the
research, evidence available to support it, and the
method used for the research (Myers, 1997;
Neuman, 2011; Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). Those
assumptions can be categorised in three main
sections as the following: Firstly, belief regarding the
object of study. Secondly, belief regarding the
knowledge notion. Beliefs regrading the connection
between knowledge and empirical world as
discussed by (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991).
This understanding will enable improved:
comprehension of research, application of theory to
classroom practice, engagement in academic debate,
and presentation of their own research findings.
This paper gives an overview of what a paradigm
consists of, and then explores and discusses the
assumptions behind the scientific and interpretive
paradigms (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991).

Husam Helmi Alharahsheh & Abraham Pius; Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-2, Iss-2 (May-June, 2020): 39-43
40
It is highly important for researchers to
understand the key underpinning ontological and
epistemological assumptions, and to further
understand how the given assumptions determine
researchers’ selection of an appropriate
methodology and methods. Moreover, how they
connect with key findings of conducted research.
The mentioned assumptions also enable
improvement of the quality of research conducted in
relation to research comprehension, engagement
with academic resources and debates, theory
application and presentation of research main
findings and outcomes (Scotland, 2012; Raddon,
n.d).
What is paradigm?
A paradigm is inclusive of several
components that can be categorised as the following:
Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Methods
(Scotland, 2012; Raddon, n.d). Each of the given
components is briefly defined and explained in
terms of its interconnection with the other
components.
Ontology
Ontology can be briefly defined as the
nature of reality as given by (Hudson & Ozanne,
1988). Therefore, ontology is mainly concerned with
the phenomenon in terms of its nature of existence.
It is seeking an answer or reality to a research
question through indicating to existing type of
knowledge can be found.
Epistemology
Epistemology can be briefly defined as how
reality is being known by the researcher as
discussed by (Carson et al., 2001). Therefore,
epistemology is concerned with how a researcher is
aiming to uncover knowledge to reach reality.
Moreover, Epistemology is considered as an internal
factor within the researcher as it is also concerned
with how a researcher can distinguish between
wright and wrong, and it is about how a researcher
is viewing the world around them.
Different paradigms have different assumptions and
views in terms of ontology and epistemology.
Therefore, each one of them can have different
assumptions in the way of reality as well as
knowledge being perceived which determine a
research approach reflected within its own
methodology and methods (Scotland, 2012).
METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
Methodology is concerned with the general
research strategy followed to conduct research, this
as a result would identify the methods to be used
and match with the outlined research strategy.
Methods are included and described in the
methodology provide clarity on the modes of the
data collection. Methodology does not provide a
specific method to be followed; it would rather focus
the attention towards to the nature of the process
followed to achieve the objective of the research in a
procedure. Moreover, Methodology is about the
design process for conducting research and it is not
about the instruments or methods for doing things
(Igwenagu, 2016).
Methodological assumptions are the key
influencers of the research methods, procedures and
techniques relating to collection and analysis of
gathered evidence. Methodological assumptions of
research include the research strategy, methods,
techniques related to sampling, the size of the
sample selected, as well as collection and analysis
techniques for data included in the research.
Research methods are more related to the
collection and analysis techniques used for data to
produce and develop knowledge. There are two
types to be adopted either quantitative or qualitative
research. However, mixed methods can be also used
in some cases.
Quantitative research is relating to
measuring quantity with application to a specific
phenomenon, and this is expressed in terms of
quantity. Furthermore, quantitative research is used
often to test existing theories (Creswell, 2002;
Biggam, 2008).
Qualitative research is relating to the
meaning and process where it might not be
examinable through quantity or amount. Qualitative
research aims to provide specific understanding to a
phenomenon based on the ones experiencing it with
less generalization. Furthermore, qualitative
research is aimed to attain deep understanding of a
specific case with in depth exploratory studies to
enable finding quality responses throughout the
research (Creswell, 2002; Easterby et al., 2008;
Biggam, 2008).
Methodology is the general research
strategy that outlines the way in which a research
project is to be undertaken and, among other
things, identifies the methods to be used in it.
These Methods, described in the methodology,
define the means or modes of data collection or,
sometimes, how a specific result is to be
calculated. Methodology does not define specific
methods, even though much attention is given to the
nature and kinds of processes to be followed in a
particular procedure or to attain an objective.

Husam Helmi Alharahsheh & Abraham Pius; Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-2, Iss-2 (May-June, 2020): 39-43
41
POSITIVISM: EXPLANATION AND
DISCUSSION
Positivism is counted on the philosophical
stance of natural scientist that is working with
observable reality within society leading to
production of generalizations. Positivism relate on
the importance of what is given in general, with
more strict focus to consider pure data as well as
facts without being influenced by interpretation of
bias of human (Scotland, 2012; Saunders et al.,
2012).
If a researcher adopted extreme positivist
position this would lead to the following:
- The researcher would view an organisation or
other related social entities as real like the same
view of physical objects as well as natural
phenomena.
- In terms of epistemology, the research would
focus on the discovery of facts or regularities
that are observable and measurable.
Furthermore, phenomena to be observed and
measured should lead to development of
credibility and meaningfulness in the data.
- The researcher would aim to find causal
relationships between the data gathered to
further enable the creation of law-life
generalization like the ones developed by
scientists. Furthermore, the researcher would
use and include key universal rules and laws to
support and explain the studied behaviour or
event within organisations.
Table 1: The positivisim research philosophy
Source: (Saunders et al., 2012).
The given table above provides clarity on
positivism in terms of ontology, epistemology,
axiology and the methods used for research.
The methods used in positivism to further
understand the natural world are not always
transferable to the social world. Therefore, it can be
viewed that positivism has some limitations.
In some cases of research, it can be difficult
to adopt positivism as it aims to reduce complexity
to simplicity through simplifying and control of the
given variables, and considering the assumption that
isolation of some variable can be difficult and
challenging. For example, an investigation included
20 teaching models and 20000 children. A lot of the
explored hypotheses included in the study were not
rejected given the fact that the research did not
consider several variables related to the given
context. Variables such as specific life events and
attitudes of individuals. Therefore, several
predictions were included as correct due to random
reasons selected and there was no scientific
explanation of behaviour of human fully related to
the specific context. This can provide a very difficult
challenge to be more specific and take all variables
that may affect findings into consideration during
research (Scotland, 2012).
Further issues and challenges to be considered
through adoption of positivism (Saunders et al.,
2012; Scotland, 2012; Collins, 2010; Wilson, 2010;
Ramanathan, 2008):
1. Statistical tests can be misused leading to
misinterpretation within research due to
selection of incorrect test of statistics.
Furthermore, the results of the test as well as its
significance is largely dependent on the sample
size.
2. Generalizations in the research can lead to
ignoring of the intention of individuals and their
actions may not be fully explored and
understood in this case. In relation to the nature
of the research to be conducted by the author
require further depth to answer the research
main question based on participants’
perspectives.
3. Positivism is more reliant on status que with
more of the research findings being descriptive.
Therefore, this might be challenging for
researchers to gain further insight of in-depth
issues to be considered part of their research.
INTERPRETIVISM: EXPLANATION AND
DISCUSSION
Interpretivism developed through critique
of positivism with subjective perspective.
Interpretivism is more concerned with in depth
variables and factors related a context, it considers
humans as different from physical phenomena as
they create further depth in meanings with the
assumption that human beings cannot be explored
in a similar way to physical phenomena. Therefore,
social sciences research requires this distinction,
and should be different from natural sciences
research. Interpretivism considers differences such
as cultures, circumstances, as well as times leading
to development of different social realities.
Interpretivism is different from positivism as it aims
to include richness in the insights gathered rather

Husam Helmi Alharahsheh & Abraham Pius; Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-2, Iss-2 (May-June, 2020): 39-43
42
attempting to provide a definite and universal laws
that can be generalised and applicable to everyone
regardless of some key variables and factors (Myers,
2008; Saunders et al., 2012; Bhattacherjee, 2012).
Some variations of interpretivism based on
(Littlejohn & Foss, 2009):
 Hermeneutics: This refers to the interpretation
and understanding philosophy. It is mainly
focused on biblical sources and wisdom
literature.
 Phenomenology: This seeks to understand the
world through direct phenomena experiencing.
 Symbolic interactionism: It takes symbols into
consideration as social objects providing shared
meaning. Based on this consideration it is
believed that symbols provide means to support
construction of reality.
Beliefs of the interpretivist approach:
 Relativist ontology: Reality is perceived through
intersubjectivity through consideration of
meanings as well as understandings of social
and experiential aspects in the research
(Saunders et al., 2012).
 Subjective epistemology: This approach is
providing a clear link between the research and
research subject as it assumes that humans
cannot be divided from their knowledge
(Saunders et al., 2012).
Table 2: Interpretivism research philosophy
Source (Saunders et al., 2012).
The table given above is providing further
details of the interpretivism research philosophy on
ontology, epistemology, axiology and the methods
commonly used.
Interpretivism as discussed is more
sensitive towards individual meanings and
contribution rather than being compromised
through the positivism research philosophy.
However, interpretive research may have its own
critique as it rejects knowledge developed as
foundation base shared as a universal law, and
questioning its validity, and requires different set of
criteria from the ones adopted in the positivist
paradigm. Furthermore, interpretivism as a
paradigm assumes that reality is subjective and can
differ considering different individuals. Therefore,
this can lead to the understanding that research
participants would not provide general
interpretations (Scotland, 2012; Collins, 2010).
Furthermore, the data gathered and analysed would
be less likely to be generalised through adoption of
the interpretivist paradigm given the consideration
that data were mainly dependent on a specific
context, viewpoint, and values (Saunders et al.,
2012). However, adoption of the interpretivism
paradigm can provide in depth understanding of
certain contexts such as cross-cultural studies,
factors influencing certain development through
collection and interpretation of qualitative data
leading to deep insight and conclusions that may
differ from others as argued by (Myers, 2008;
Saunders et al., 2012). Adoption of the
interpretivism paradigm would lead to generation of
high-level validity in data as it is based on personal
contributions with consideration of different
variables (Myers. 2008).
The interpretive paradigm as discussed
above would enable researchers to consider
different factors such as behavioural aspects based
on participants’ experiences, and this would help to
describe reality given the assumptions and beliefs of
the interpretivist researcher. Furthermore, the
interpretivist paradigm would enable researchers to
treat the context of the research and its situation as
unique considering the given circumstances
associated as well as participants involved. This
paradigm would also support the research to be
more focused on the specific topic and abstain the
research from heading towards more generalisation
as given in the positivist paradigm (Moustakas,
1994; Remenyi et al., 1998).
There are several common qualities the
research would adopt through following the
interpretivist paradigm which can be summarised as
the following: Firstly, the research would focus on
the whole experience rather than considering
certain parts of it. Secondly, questions and problems
identification development of the research would be
mainly influenced by the researcher in terms of
interest, involvement as well as commitment.
Thirdly, would enable researchers to explore further
depth of individual experiences through in formal
discussions and interviews. Fourthly, exploration of
humans’ experiences in depth through adoption of
qualitative designs and methodologies. Fifthly, it
would enable usage of experience as a highly
important aspect and contribution to support
scientific research. Sixthly, it would enable
researchers to further explore in depth throughout
individual experiences rather than considering
generalised measurements or expectations as given
in the positivist paradigm. Seventh, experience is
largely integrated within subjects and objects

Husam Helmi Alharahsheh & Abraham Pius; Glob Acad J Humanit Soc Sci; Vol-2, Iss-2 (May-June, 2020): 39-43
43
leading to valuable findings and insights (Moustakas,
1994). Therefore, based on the given qualities that
the interpretivism paradigm enable researchers to
have qualitative methods are most suited methods
to gain the deep insights based on a specific context.
In comparison, the positivism paradigm as discussed
would not enable the level of depth and insight.
However, using quantitative research would enable
researchers to be more generalised and describe
things more in numbers and measures instead of in-
depth words (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). Therefore, the
nature of the research and its context can influence
the selection of the most appropriate paradigm.
CONCLUSION
The research conducted has included
exploration, discussion, and examination of different
paradigms with reference to the positivist and
interpretivist paradigms as they are commonly used
by researchers. However, there are other
increasingly used paradigms that can be researched
such as pragmatism. Based on the given discussion
and examination supported by variety of arguments
and viewpoints gathered from the literature,
researchers can consider the fitness of each
paradigm based on their research nature and
context. The interpretivist paradigm and qualitative
methods would enable researchers to gain further
depth through seeking experiences and perceptions
of a particular social context. The positivist
paradigm on the other hand, would enable
researchers to have more statistical reliance and
generalisation leading to development of universal
laws and findings.
REFERENCES
1. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research.
USF Tampa Bay: Open University Press, pp.103 -
111.
2. Biggam, J. (2008). Succeeding with your Master’ s
Dissertation. Berkshire, England: Open
University Press.
3. Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., and Gronhaug,
K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research.
London: Sage.
4. Collins, H. (2010). Creative Research: The Theory
and Practice of Research for the Creative
Industries. AVA Publications.
5. Creswell, J. W. (2002) Educational Research:
Planning, Conducting and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Boston
MA: Pearson Education.
6. Easterby-Smith, M, Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.
(2008) Management Research. 3rd edition.
London: Sage.
7. Hudson, L., and Ozanne, J. (1988). Alternative
Ways of Seeking Knowledge in Consumer
Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4),
508–521.
8. Igwenagu, C. (2016). Fundamentals of Research
Methodology and Data Collection. LAP Lambert
Academic Publishing.
9. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological
Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative Research in
Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 241–
242.
11. Myers, M.D. (2008). Qualitative Research in
Business & Management
12. . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Neuman, W. (2011). Social Research Methods:
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston:
Pearson Education.
14. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991).
Studying Information Technology in
organizations: Research approaches and
assumptions. Information Systems Research,
2(1), 1–28.
15. Raddon, A. (n.d.). Early Stage Research Training:
Epistemology & Ontology in Social Science
Research. [online] University of Leicester.
Available at:
https://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/ssah/documen
ts/research-training-
presentations/EpistFeb10.pdf [Accessed 10 Jan.
2019].
16. Ramanathan, R. (2008). The Role of
Organisational Change Management in Offshore
Outsourcing of Information Technology Services.
Florida: Universal Publishers.
17. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E.
(1998). Doing Research in Business and
Management, An Introduction to Process and
Method. London: Sage.
18. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012).
Research Methods for Business Students. 6th
edition, Pearson Education Limited.
19. Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical
Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology
and Epistemology to the Methodology and
Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and
Critical Research Paradigms. English Language
Teaching, 5(9), pp.9-16.
20. Thanh, N. and Thanh, T. (2015). The
Interconnection Between Interpretivist
Paradigm and Qualitative Methods in
Education. American Journal of Educational
Science, 1(2), pp.24-27.
21. Wilson, J. (2010). Essentials of Business Research:
A Guide to Doing Your Research Project. Los
Angeles: Sage.