Chapter 2

Approaches in social research

Positivist Approach

Positivists prefer quantitative methods such as social surveys, structured questionnaires and
official statistics because these have good reliability and representativeness. Positivists see
society as shaping the individual and believe that ‘social facts’ shape individual action. The
positivist tradition stresses the importance of doing quantitative research such as large scale
surveys in order to get an overview of society as a whole and to uncover social trends, such
as the relationship between educational achievement and social class. This type of sociology
is more interested in trends and patterns rather than individuals. Positivists also believe that
sociology can and should use the same methods and approaches to study the social world that
“natural” sciences such as biology and physics use to investigate the physical world. By
adopting “scientific” techniques sociologists should be able, eventually, to uncover the laws
that govern societies just as scientists have discovered the laws that govern the physical
world. In positivist research, sociologists tend to look for relationships, or ‘correlations’
between two or more variables. This is known as the comparative method

In positivism studies the role of the researcher is limited to data collection and interpretation
in an objective way. In these types of studies research findings are usually observable and
quantifiable. Moreover, in positivism studies the researcher is independent form the study and
there are no provisions for human interests within the study. In other words, studies with
positivist paradigm are based purely on facts and consider the world to be external and
objective.

The five main principles of positivism research philosophy can be summarized as the
following:

• There are no differences in the logic of inquiry across sciences.

• The research should aim to explain and predict.
• Research should be empirically observable via human senses. Inductive reasoning
should be used to develop statements (hypotheses) to be tested during the research
process.
• Science is not the same as the common sense. The common sense should not be
allowed to bias the research findings.
• Science must be value-free and it should be judged only by logic.

The following table illustrates ontology, epistemology, axiology and typical research methods
associated with positivism research philosophy:

1
Ontology Epistemology Axiology Typical methods

Scientific method
Real, external, Observable and
measurable facts
independent
Value-free research

One true reality Law-like Typically deductive,

generalizations Researcher is detached,
(universalism) neutral and highly structured,
Numbers independent of what is large samples,
researched measurement,
Granular (things) typically
quantitative
Causal explanation and
method of analysis,
prediction as Researcher maintains
but a range of data
Ordered contributon objective stance
can be analysed

Positivist Paradigm
Positivist Paradigm

The world is perceived as external and objective

Basic notions Independency of the observer
Value-free approach to science

Focusing on facts
Causalities and fundamental laws are searched
Responsibilities of researcher Phenomenon are reduced to the simplest elements
Hypotheses formulation and testing them

Most suitable research methods Concepts have to be operationalized

Sampling Samples have to be large

2
Shortcomings of Positivism

Positivism as an epistemology is associated with the following set of disadvantages:

Firstly, positivism relies on experience as a valid source of knowledge. However, a wide

range of basic and important concepts such as cause, time and space are not based on
experience.

Secondly, positivism assumes that all types of processes can be perceived as a certain
variation of actions of individuals or relationships between individuals.

Thirdly, adoption of positivism in business studies and other studies can be criticized for
reliance on status quo. In other words, research findings in positivism studies are only
descriptive, thus they lack insight into in-depth issues.

Interpretative Approach

An Interpretative approach to social research would be much more qualitative, using methods
such as unstructured interviews or participant observation. Interpretative or anti-
positivists argue that individuals are not just puppets who react to external social forces as
Positivists believe. According to Interpretative individuals are intricate and complex and
different people experience and understand the same ‘objective reality’ in very different ways
and have their own, often very different, reasons for acting in the world, thus scientific
methods are not appropriate. Interpretative research methods derive from ‘social action
theory‘. Interpretative actually criticise ‘scientific sociology’ (Positivism) because many of
the statistics it relies on are themselves socially constructed. Development of Interpretative
philosophy is based on the critique of positivism in social sciences. Accordingly, this
philosophy emphasizes qualitative analysis over quantitative analysis. Interpretative argue
that in order to understand human action we need to achieve ‘Verstehen‘, or empathetic
understanding – we need to see the world through the eyes of the actors doing the acting.
Accordingly, “interpretive researchers assume that access to reality (given or socially
constructed) is only through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared
meanings, and instruments”. Interpretative approach is “associated with the philosophical
position of idealism, and is used to group together diverse approaches, including
social constructivism, phenomenology and hermeneutics; approaches that reject the
objectivist view that meaning resides within the world independently of consciousness”.
According to Interpretative approach, it is important for the researcher as a social actor to

3
 appreciate differences between people. Moreover, Interpretative studies usually focus on
meaning and may employ multiple methods in order to reflect different aspects of the issue.

Important Aspects of Interpretative Approach

Interpretative approach is based on naturalistic approach of data collection such as interviews

and observations. Secondary data research is also popular with Interpretative philosophy. In
this type of studies, meanings emerge usually towards the end of the research process.
The most noteworthy variations of Interpretative include the following:

▪ Hermeneutics refers to the philosophy of interpretation and understanding. Hermeneutics

mainly focuses on biblical texts and wisdom literature and as such, has a little relevance to
business studies.
▪ Phenomenology is “the philosophical tradition that seeks to understand the world through
directly experiencing the phenomena”
▪ Symbolic interactionism accepts symbols as culturally derived social objects having shared
meanings. According to symbolic interactionism symbols provide the means by which
reality is constructed
In general Interpretative approach is based on the following beliefs:

1. Relativist ontology. This approach perceives reality as intersubjectively that is based on

meanings and understandings on social and experiential levels.
2. Transactional or subjectivist epistemology. According to this approach, people cannot
be separated from their knowledge; therefore there is a clear link between the researcher and
research subject.

Assumptions and research philosophies

Assumptions Interpretative Approach

Nature of reality Socially constructed, multiple

Goal of research Understanding, weak prediction

Focus of interest What is specific, unique, and deviant

Knowledge generated Meanings

4
 Relative (time, context, culture, value bound)

Subject/Researcher
relationship Interactive, cooperative, participative

What some people think and do, what kind of problems

Desired information they are confronted with, and how they deal with them

Advantages and Disadvantages of Interpretative Approach

Main disadvantages associated with Interpretative relate to subjective nature of this approach
and great room for bias on behalf of researcher. Primary data generated in Interpretative
studies cannot be generalized since data is heavily impacted by personal viewpoint and
values. Therefore, reliability and representativeness of data is undermined to a certain extent
as well.
On the positive side, qualitative research areas such as cross-cultural differences in
organizations, issues of ethics, leadership and analysis of factors impacting leadership etc.
can be studied in a great level of depth. Primary data generated via Interpretative studies
might be associated with a high level of validity because data in such studies tends to be
trustworthy and honest.

5
6
Feminist Approach

Feminist epistemologies, such as feminist empiricism, standpoint theory, and postmodernism,

recognize women’s lived experiences as legitimate sources of knowledge. Feminist
methodologies attempt to eradicate sexist bias in research and find ways to capture women’s
voices that are consistent with feminist ideals.

Practically, the process of feminist research is characterized by four primary features:

(1) expanding methodologies to include both quantitative and qualitative methods,

(2) connecting women for group-level data collection,

(3) reducing the hierarchical relationship between researchers and their participants to
facilitate trust and disclosure, and

(4) recognizing and reflecting upon the emotionality of women’s lives.

Feminist methods in social science research:

Feminist methods may have four main objectives:

(i) the ability to uncover and overcome types of bias in research

(ii) The ability to detect and create social change

(iii) a concept or method to illustrate human diversity

(iv) An acknowledgement of the credentials and position of the researcher.

In order to create social change any method must include and respect the participants as
change agents. The method needs to acknowledge diversity and that not all women see the
social world in the same way e.g. the method approach to interviews and inquiry that explore
the experiences of different religions. i.e. evidence has been presented to support theory
presented.

Feminist studies use both qualitative and quantitative research techniques, although
qualitative research is more readily used. The term methodology relates to more of a process
of how to conduct research i.e. what you need to select, empirical study of what to observe,

7
what to measure and how to conduct analysis. The method id more related to the precise
technique of carrying out the study. A common assumption has been that methodology and
epistemology are identical. This has created a relatively narrow technical approach towards
carrying out and conducting research. The concept of methodology essentially opens the way
for conducting choice i.e. the implications of what we should do and how we might do it. It
facilitates questions on data collection and assimilation. As such methodology paves the way
for critical reflection and creativity within the social sciences.

The challenges and choices:

Feminist researchers have taken very different approaches to the adoption of methodology.
As such they have adopted differing means to the acquisition and validation of knowledge.
This has tended to lean towards a more scientific and evidential base of presenting
knowledge. This has avoided the more serious challenges of refuting feminist research and
rejecting it on the basis that it contains no scientific method.

The female positions tend to have two distinct types of focus (i) that engaged with the
sciences and (ii) that focused upon society. Researchers have emerged from former
marginalised groups and as such have had a profound way of changing the pattern of inquiry
and thought process. There are still those however that holds the opinion that feminism is a
threat to the objectivity of science. Sandra Harding pointed out that if all knowledge is
socially constructed it will pose a major threat and challenge to science.

Critical Approach

Critical social research is reinforced by a critical-dialectical perspective which attempts to dig

beneath the surface of historically specific, oppressive, social structures. Critical social
research involves an epistemological perspective in which knowledge and critique are
intertwined. Indeed, it is arguable that for a critical methodologist, knowledge is critique. A
critical research process involves more than merely appending critique to an accumulation of
‘fact’ or ‘theory’ gathered via some mechanical process, rather it denies the (literally)
objective status of knowledge and concerns itself with the processural nature of knowledge.
For critical methodologists, knowledge is a process of moving towards an understanding of
the world and of the knowledge which structures our perceptions of that world. Critical social
research thus aims at an analysis of social processes, delving beneath ostensive and dominant

8
conceptual frames, in order to reveal the underlying practices, their historical specificity and
structural manifestations. Critical social research does not take the apparent social structure,
social processes or accepted history for granted. It tries to dig beneath the surface of
appearances. It asks how social systems really work, how ideology or history conceals the
processes which oppress and control people. Critical social research is intrinsically critical. It
assumes that a critical process informs knowledge. In its engagement with oppressive
structures it questions the nature of prevailing knowledge and directs attention at the
processes and institutions which legitimate knowledge. Critique of oppressive structures
involves a critique of the ‘scientific’ knowledge which sustain them and this is often a direct
focus of attention for critical social research.

Critical social research is a way of approaching the social world in which critique is central.
It is not bounded by a specific set of methods. Any methodic tool is permissible, it is the way
the empirical evidence is approached and interpreted, the methodology not the method of data
collection per se, which characterises critical social research. Critical social research
encourages neither methodic monopoly, nor, more importantly, method-led research.

This approach sees ethnography as a method which used prevailing theoretical concepts and
propositions to guide the analysis through a systematic collection, classification and reporting
of ‘facts’ in order to generate new empirical generalisations based on these data. As such, this
inductive approach sees analytic description as primarily an empirical application and
modification of theory. Only secondarily is ethnography able to test theory, and this is limited
to a comparison of complex analytic descriptions of single cases as and when such cases are
accumulated. Detailed empirical description to reveal social processes rather than causal
generalisation is how the conventional approach projects ethnography.

Elements of Critical Social Research:

The elements of critical social research are abstraction, totality, essence, praxis, ideology,
history and structure

Abstraction: Abstraction is usually construed in terms of a distillation of sensory perception

of the world of objects into conceptual categories. That is, we start from the (literally)
objective world and select out the recurrent or apparently core or defining features until an
abstract concept is formulated (at least in our minds if not in a directly communicable form).

9
This process of distillation of some features from a set of observed objects is at the basis of
most systems of classification.

Totality: Totality refers to the view that social phenomena are interrelated and form a total
whole. This implies more than that a social phenomenon should be situated in a wider social
context, it requires that social phenomena should not be analysed in isolation. They should
not be regarded as encapsulated by a narrowly defined realm which can be investigated in a
way that suggests they are self contained elements or organisms. A totalistic perspective
implies that the components are interrelated into a coherent structure, that they only have
meaning in terms of the structure, and in turn the structure relies on the component parts.

Essence: Essence refers to the fundamental element of an analytic process. Most positivists
regard any concern with essences as bordering on the metaphysical. Their only overt
acknowledgement is in relation to the reduction of social or physical processes to their
essential causal links.

Praxis: Praxis means practical reflective activity. It is what humans do a lot of the time.
Praxis does not include ‘instinctive’ or ‘mindless’ activity like sleeping, breathing, walking,
etc., or undertaking repetitive work tasks. Praxis is what changes the world. For the critical
social researcher knowledge is not just about finding out about the world but it is about
changing it. It is important, therefore, that critical social research engages praxis.

Ideology: Ideology, as a concept, has a long history but it developed its current usage as an
analytic and critical tool in the work of Marx and has been an important feature of Marxism.
Marx suggested that ideology is present from the moment that social relations take on a
hierarchical form. There are, arguably, two approaches to a critical analysis of ideology, the
positive and the negative view of ideology. Ideology in its positive sense tends to relate
ideology closely to world view, notably class-based world views. The negative meaning of
ideology is fundamentally opposed to a reduction of ideology to false consciousness. The
negative view argues that ideas cannot be detached from the material conditions of their
production thus it is opposed to a world view (positive) view of ideology.

Structure: Structure is a term used in two ways in social research. Its principal meaning and
the one applicable to critical social research is of structure viewed holistically as a complex
set of interrelated elements which are interdependent and which can only be adequately

10
conceived of in terms of the complete structure. This is the sense in which structuralism uses
the term structure.

History: History refers to both the reconstructed account of past events and the process by
which this reconstruction is made; i.e. the process of doing history. History writing then
involves both a view about the nature of history and the assembling of historical materials.
There are a number of ways of ‘doing’ history and a number of different schemes for
categorising history. 13 Rather than assess these differing views, the nature of the historical
perspective embodied in critical social research will be outlined.

Deconstruction and reconstruction: Deconstruction and reconstruction begins from the

abstract concepts which are applied to, or used in relation to, an area of investigation. In
practice, there may be a large list of concepts. It is not necessary to attempt a separate critical
analysis of each. They are all interrelated and so the ‘key’ is to locate a central concept and
critically analyse that. From that, the other concepts can be reconstructed.

Meanings:

Epistemology: The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and
scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

Ontology:

1.the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

2.a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and
the relations between them.

Axiology: the study of the nature of value and valuation, and of the kinds of things that are
valuable. "one of the central questions in axiology is this: what elements can contribute to the
intrinsic value of a state of affairs?"

a particular theory of axiology. "all consequentialists start with an axiology which tells us
what things are valuable or fitting to desire"

11