Methods in Social Sciences: The Positivist approach
This article aims to present the positivist method used in social science research. We’ll understand what the method is and what the limits are.
Positivism
Positivism originates from the thinking of the French philosophers and sociologists Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and Emile Durkheim. It aims to use the methods used in natural science to understand the social world. This approach emphasizes the use of quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis, to objectively measure and describe social phenomena. Positivists reject the idea of Verstehen(an approach by Max Weber which I have previously written about), and instead focus on the collection of empirical data that can be used to test hypotheses and theories.
Positives
Scientific Approach: Using the scientific approach of hypothesis testing, combined with empirical data, we can claim to be ‘objective’. This is really the foundational pillar of methods utilised in natural sciences.
General: Given the quantitative approach, there is the opportunity to compare and contrast statistics.
Bias: Using data and experimental designs, bias can be minimised.
Negatives
Subjectivity: Unable to understand/integrate subjective experience of individuals
Physics approach to existence: Creates a physics model of social issues, creates a system of dynamics. Reduces the complexity of social phenomena to the interaction of variables.
Limited Scope: Data is crucial, if not available then the method cannot be utilised. Also, only able to use variables for which quantitative data is available or generated.
Positivist methods can be used to explore well known themes such as income distribution, health measurements such as heart disease and diabetes and education metrics, to name a few. This allows us to compare across and space and time, e.g. to look at policy implications over time, assess differences between countries etc.
Given the quantitative nature of the approach, the researcher can use methods in statistics such as random sampling and approaches in experimental design such as control groups, blinded studies as well as replicating the study in time and space(a staple in the scientific method to ensure robust results) to limit the bias.
However, there are limits to this, Positivist approaches are limited in scope. For example, comparing the onset of diabetes between countries, quantitative approaches can be used only if the data exists for the desired variables, but what about when aiming to understand the causes behind the prevalence of the onset of diabetes. One could argue that it’s mostly genetic (I’m giving an example here, I am by no means claiming this holds true), and because the population has that particular gene, they are more prone. This would still be data driven, we could get data relating to a certain gene in a population and make conclusions. However, there is a requirement for the environment to exist for the gene to express itself, and does it also mean that no matter what you do, if you have the gene you will get diabetes? (Think about the nature vs nurture dichotomy)
Continuing the use of a scientific method to understand the nature vs nurture argument, we would develop various hypotheses and test them.
A hypothesis that could be tested is to understand the lived experience of people. Culture plays a large part in this exploration. Gifting sweets might be a large part of a people’s culture, or it could represent the experience of people within a particular social hierarchy e.g. 3 course meals with dessert everyday. These ideas feed into the individuals subjectivity, the feelings they have about the world, and how these feelings lead to actions. Some people might live in a culture where this gifting or consumption exists, however, they prefer savory foods, or they limit what they eat that is sweet due to taste preferences.
How can a positivist approach understand the individuals or cultural beliefs and ways of living? Culture even, to an extent, defines the concept of subjectivity (think eastern cultures and historical approaches to the individual). We can see that the positivist method has some limitations. When we are trying to interrogate the reasons behind certain social phenomena, it fall short as a method in getting to the bottom of it.
How can subjectivity be explored?
The addition of qualitative data such surveys, questionnaires (these can be both quantitative and qualitative, it depends on how you structure them) and interviews. These can definitely enrich existing quantitative data sets. Again, it’s important to emphasize that the use of these methods still comes with the potential of bias, and it’s as important, if not more, given their potentially qualitative nature, than correct approaches to be taken to utilize them and integrate them.
How can culture be explored?
Ethnography is an approach whereby researchers immerse themselves in a culture and get to know it from the inside. This is generally a mixed-method approach, where quantitative and qualitative data is used. Take for example, meals of the day, this is a quantitative piece of information, you could also collate how often they eat meat or certain foods, but the prayer before the meal, how the food is eaten, e.g. with the community, elders first, segregation, on the floor etc, is far more qualitative in nature.
Cultural Psychology is an approach which aims to explore the relationship between culture and human behavior. Again, like ethnography this would utilize a mixed-method approach.
You can see that taking a positivist approach might not always get you to the point of understanding the cause of things. Additional information, through qualitative approaches can help provide that context. However, subjectivity and culture also feed into the central player in all of this, the researcher, the individual who is undertaking the research.
When engaging in social science research, or matter of fact any research, the variables and outputs which the investigator aims to be of importance evidently come back to an extent, to their own world view. Take an example,Religion vs Science: Many scientists don’t believe in god, so the problems relating to the big bang theory could go on infinitely, because where does the energy come from? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, this infallible truth needs to be resolved, and without God? Parallel universes?
Another way we can look at this is to say that an investigator used a particular dataset to understand a phenomena, chose a particular set of variables to explore. To another researcher, this might be incomplete, given their own views of the world, and thus they use other variables to understand the same phenomena,(this is really how academia works). You can see the author’s own view of the world plays a significant role when considering any method, positivist or not.
So what will you is the point? Explore subjectivity using the positivist method might have serious limitations, but what about the subjectivity of the researcher? How will that be overcome, if it can be at all?
This is exactly the point of science of the scientific method, that we try and limit bias. The subjectivity of the individual researcher engaging in research can be minimized using methods from statistics and experimental design, the individual subjectivity of the researcher is a component of bias.
The above example of religion vs science in the debates of cosmology sheds light into the limits of bias minimisation using the scientific method. The bias of the individual researcher will only be minimised to to a point, why? Because of the metaphysical foundations. In the religion vs science example, the metaphysical foundations are completely different, there is some overlap, but different.
We are now discussing the difference between observation and reasoning. This is a philosophical debate which I don’t want to get into here, I want to limit the discussion to social sciences, but this is a taste of the underlying foundations of the method. Methods come arise from beliefs, metaphysical beliefs which underpin our reality.
Conclusion
The article explores the positivist method, a quantatative approach widely used in social sciences. We then look at the limits of this method, focusing on its inability to include subjectivity and culture. These areas can be explored using other methods. However, we claim that there is always the subjectivity of the researcher which is involved. While the positivist approach might not be effective in understanding subjectivity and culture, the inherent subjectivity of the researcher can be considered a bias, and that can be limited using approaches in statistics and experimental design. We see that there are limits to this bias minimisation due to the metaphysical underpinnings of your beliefs.
