Positivism in research - a beginners’ introduction to the positivist paradigm

The social research paradigm of positivism – what’s it all about? Well, if positivism was a high school clique, it would be the science geeks.

In this blogpost, I’m going to break all that down.

I’m Dr Elizabeth Yardley and I’ve spent 20 years trying to demystify some of academia’s technical, impenetrable jargon around theory. Most books and journal articles around paradigms excel at making this topic completely inaccessible.

I am on a mission to crush all of that, to help masters and PhD students get to grips with these concepts and ideas that are nowhere near as complicated as they might first seem!

So, lets get into it.

Paradigms – quick recap

In this blogpost, I explained what paradigms are - and I’m not going to rehash all of that right now - but it’s useful to have a quick recap.

In that blogpost, I introduced the concept of paradigms as research cultures, each with their own way of thinking, their own set of values and beliefs about research.

I compared these paradigms to cliques in high school, where different groups of students have their own unique way of thinking and doing. Despite their differences, these cliques share common interests and goals - one being to survive high school! Same for researchers from different social science paradigms – they all aim to understand and explain the social world.

Building on this analogy, I outlined three prominent social science paradigms: positivism, interpretivism, and critical realism.

To make these paradigms more accessible, I provided basic metaphors using high school cliques.

Positivists were likened to the science geeks, emphasising their focus on hard facts, quantifiable data, and objective truth.

Interpretivists were compared to the artsy creative clique, highlighting their interest in people's stories, meanings, and subjective experiences.

Lastly, critical realists were equated with the activist kids, emphasising their commitment to uncovering deeper structures and mechanisms of inequality while advocating for social justice.

By framing paradigms as distinct research cultures with common beliefs and values in this way, we can demystify the complexities of these concepts and make them more relatable.

All three paradigms are concerned with understanding and explaining social phenomena, but they differ in their assumptions. They each offer distinct approaches to research, opting for different ways of collecting and analysing data. Positivism, interpretivism, and critical realism are positionings that all have implications for how researchers design and conduct their studies, as well as how they interpret and evaluate their findings.

Let’s now dive into positivism, beginning with its ontology.

Positivist Ontology

Think of ontology as the "What?" question – what exactly are we looking at when we study the world?

Those who sit within the positivist paradigm take a realist stance. They see the social world as akin to a hotel – it's there, it exists independently of us, and it's relatively stable and fixed. Just like a hotel doesn't change because we're staying in it, the social world doesn't alter because we're studying it.

Positivists see a tangible, objective reality 'out there', unaffected by our perceptions or interpretations. It's like saying, "Hey, the world is what it is, whether we're here to study it or not." Positivists believe in a tangible social world governed by universal laws, much like the laws of nature studied in the natural sciences.

Positivist Epistemology

Now onto epistemology – the "How?" question. Positivists approach studying the world through the lens of scientific inquiry, seeking objective knowledge based on observable facts and concrete evidence.

It’s all about what we can see, what we can observe and what we can record.

They aim for objectivity, striving to stay neutral and separate themselves from their research. This means leaving personal opinions or biases at the door and focusing on empirical data.

In positivism, the researcher is often viewed as the expert, employing their knowledge and expertise to design studies, collect data, and analyse results. The emphasis is on objectivity and detachment, with the researcher striving to maintain an authoritative and neutral stance and minimise their influence on the research process. Participants are the studied, with their role primarily limited to providing data that the researcher then interprets and analyses.

Positivists are all about the scientific method – observing, measuring, and testing – to uncover the truths of the world around us. With their focus on objectivity and empirical evidence, positivists strive to unravel the mysteries of the universe, one observation at a time.

Let’s now take a look at some examples of positivist research in social science.

Examples – Chicago School

The Chicago School of Sociology conducted numerous positivist studies in the early 20th century examining urban environments and social phenomena.

Researchers collected quantitative data through methods such as surveys, census analysis, and the mapping of social spaces. They aimed to measure and quantify things like crime rates, migration patterns, and neighborhood segregation.

These studies sought to identify patterns, correlations, and causal relationships within urban environments.

Examples include Shaw and McKay’s work on Chicago neighborhoods in the early 20th century, "Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas" (1942).

Shaw and McKay were among the first researchers to study why crime happens more in some areas of cities than others, using a positivist approach. They looked at neighborhoods in Chicago and noticed that where people lived seemed to affect how much crime happened there.

They used maps and collected data over several years to understand what was going on. They found that certain parts of the city had more crime than others, and this pattern stayed the same over time. This is distinctively positivist: using data to find patterns and understand how things work.

Their research showed that crime wasn't just about individual people being bad; it was also about the neighborhoods they lived in. This was a big deal because before this, many people thought that crime was just because some people were naturally more likely to be criminals. Shaw and McKay showed that where people live and the conditions they live in also play a big role in crime rates. So, their work helped us understand that crime is linked to things like poverty and living conditions in neighborhoods.

Recap

Time for a recap!

We started off with a quick overview of paradigms, understanding them as research cultures with shared beliefs and values.

Then, we ventured into ontology and epistemology, unraveling the “What?” and “How?” questions of studying the social world within the positivist framework.

Positivists, in the style of the science geeks in high school, see the social world as concrete and objective, governed by universal laws. Their approach to making sense of the social world mirrors the scientific method, emphasising observable facts and empirical evidence.

Lastly, we explored some examples from the Chicago School, showcasing how positivist researchers employed quantitative methods to uncover patterns and causal relationships in social phenomena, like crime in urban neighborhoods.

In essence, positivism offers a rigorous and structured approach to understanding the social world, grounded in empirical evidence and objectivity. By embracing the scientific method, positivists strive to unravel the mysteries of society, shedding light on complex social dynamics one observation at a time.

If you’ve got any questions or queries, drop them in the comments.

Join me in the next blogpost, where we’ll be taking a closer look at interpretivism. I’ll see you then!