Thinking about positivist and non-positivist research: Guide to teachers

Considering the differences between positivism and interpretivism, the former tends to favor qualitative methodology and the latter favors qualitative methodology when conducting research. If the research question relates to the relationship between society and individual, which is a very common topic for many social scientists, an interpretivist approach would rely on interviews, participant observation or fieldwork. A positivist approach, on the other hand, may look at statistical evidence, conduct experiments or use questionnaires to uncover tendencies in human behavior as the outcome of certain factors. (This, of course, does not mean that a positivist study cannot use qualitative research, in fact many positivist studies do!) The graph below summarizes some of the main characteristics of the two approaches.

Graph 1. Positivism vs. Interpretivism

Source: ReviseSociology

Worksheet: Positivist and non-positivist narratives

PDF icon Worksheet 1

Consider the following excerpts from academic studies, the first uses a positivist approach, the second uses an interpretivist approach. Discuss the differences between the two texts based on the following questions (answers are provided for teachers):

  1. Question: What is the role or position of the researcher?
    Answer: In the first text, we do not find out anything about the researcher, who seems dispatched from the study itself. In the second text, the researcher is clearly present with feelings and attitudes. For example, “reluctantly” implied discomfort while conducting fieldwork observations.
     
  2. Question: What do we learn about school drop out based on the two texts?
    Answer: In the first text, we learn that patterns of school participation explain drop put rates among countries. In the second text, we learn about various nuances that may lead to drop out rates: on the one hand early marriages and on the other hand the stereotype of early marriages. The excerpt does provide further details.
     
  3. Question: Are claims about drop put rates general or specific?
    Answer: In the first text, countries are categorized into categories and broad conclusions are made. In the second text, a specific group is discussed, likely in a specific country, with no general assertions.
     
  4. Question: What is the methodology used?
    Answer: In none of the texts methodology is explicitly stated, but we can assume that the first text relies on statistical evidence and the second text uses fieldwork observation.
     
  5. Question: What is the relationship between students and drop out rates?
    Answer: The first text highlights important factors that determine the extent of drop out rates. Individual choices do not play a role. In the second text, there are individuals acting and reacting, which might contribute to drop out rates. (Although the second text does not explicitly mention drop out rates.)
     
  6. Question: Which text provides more useful knowledge about drop out rates?
    Answer: There is no right answer; students should debate whether generalizable statements are more useful, or detailed explanations that may be relevant only for certain groups in specific contexts. Both have pros and cons.

Teachers are welcome to discuss the two texts beyond the above suggested questions. Students are encouraged to think about different strengths of the two approaches, rather than deeming one of them as wring or faulty. Students may also be asked to find texts themselves and identify the approach (positivist or interpretivist) is used in the selected text(s).

“Common patterns of primary school progression are important as they highlight key points where children are most at risk of dropping out from school. Although patterns of enrolment by grade differ markedly between countries, we extracted three main profiles of participation in primary school…The first profile contains countries with high participation rates across the primary school cycle … Drop out rates for these countries are low and most children enrolled in primary schooling are likely to complete even lower secondary education. … The second profile of participation and school progression is common in countries with high enrolment rates in the first year of primary schooling… Usually, the grade specific gross enrolment rate is over 150 percent indicating that there is high grade repetition and over age children in primary 1 and there may be under age children as well…The third profile includes countries with age specific enrolment rates in the first years of primary schooling below 100 percent; hence a high proportion of children are still unreached ... Participation rates in primary Grade 1 are below 85 percent and moderate drop out rates during the primary school cycle results in completion rates below 50 percent.”

Source: Sabates, R., Akyeampong, K., Westbrook J. & F. Hunt (2010). “Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011. The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education School Drop out: Patterns, Causes, Changes and Policies”.

“The ‘Gypsy school’ discontinued education at seventh grade… ‘They get married by the time they are in sixth or seventh grade, there is no need for more education’, a teacher revealed when giving me a ‘tour’ of the ‘Gypsy school’ … Her calm and confident voice implied that this was an established practice in the school that everyone consented to and was comfortable with. This was further proved when a month later, as a consequence of my conversation with the principal, I doubted the assumed mutual consent to this setup. The principal confidently proposed a ‘spontaneous survey’, and walked into a fifth-grade classroom with a prepared question: ‘Girls, all of you will get married soon, probably this or next year, is that right?’ Reluctantly, I followed the principal as she proved her point through this experiment. … Roma girls nodded without even making an eye contact, then relieved, they quickly resumed playing a cooking game on computers (a computer game that was described to me as ‘very popular’ among Roma girls).”

Source: Dunajeva, J. (2021). Constructing Identities over Time. Budapest: CEU Press, p. 123.