Confessions of a PhD Student (13): “Positivist? Interpretivist? Neither. I am a pragmatist”

In science there are different paradigms which attempt to explain the world. Is there a single reality, one that is out there, available for anyone who looks for it? Or is it something more variable, something internal, something we create and modify? Positivism views reality as objective, fixed. Interpretivism considers it subjective, depending on relevant actors.

Positivists tend to use quantitative methods to study phenomena; interpretivists prefer a more qualitative approach. Both have limitations. Positivists identify statistical trends, but their findings lack depth. Researchers may fail to fully appreciate the context and the voices of participants. Interpretivists seek an in-depth understanding of the matter of study, but their results lack breadth. Researchers’ personal interpretations are subject to bias, and generalising is complicated due to a small number of participants.

Imagine a company wanting to know if employees are satisfied with a course. A positivist applies a survey to all participants, and finds that 80% report liking the training and would recommend it. An interpretivist conducts interviews to a sample of students, and finds a tendency to provide positive comments about the training and praise the collaborative activities embedded in the course. While both approaches have the described limitations, both yield valuable information, and their conclusions are rather similar.

Me, I like statistics. I also like tangible, observable things. I like operationalising variables. I like making sure we are talking about the same thing. More than once I have been called a positivist. However, I do not consider myself a positivist. I do not like labels, as they tend to imply characteristics that may or may not apply. If I call myself a positivist, then people might expect me to only look for the objective reality, only look at numbers and statistical trends and miss the beauty of the detail. And I also believe that truth is socially constructed. People’s subjective perceptions are a valuable source of information, not only to themselves but to the world. Personal accounts of phenomena help to obtain explanations. Yet, I do not consider myself an interpretivist either.

I am a pragmatist. I focus on what works. I do research using mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative). I can see the value of objective and subjective knowledge. I understand truth as a tentative, evolving entity. I believe that different situations could (and should!) be studied in different ways. I reject the idea that there are two options, positivism or interpretivism, white or black. I see a world full of colors. Understanding this world requires openness to different ideas, approaches and explanations. How could I discard a paradigm that works? Both positivism and interpretivism can work. Pragmatism for the win.

—-

For further readings, please see:

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California, USA: Sage Publications.

Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences. USA: SAGE Publications.

Confessions of a PhD Student (9): “I created a monster”

Doing my PhD has been an adventure. I began with a very general idea of what I wanted to do. My work was fuzzy, vague. I was lost in a labyrinth of information. After doing a literature review and having several discussions with my supervisor, I was able to narrow down my topic to something specific and manageable… or so I thought.

 

Based on my research questions, I worked on ways of getting some answers. I chose a mixed approach. I included different instruments and methods to triangulate the information: interviews, surveys, document analysis, business metrics and more. I decided to consider the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders to obtain a more thorough understanding: students, teachers, course designers and managers. To organize myself, I divided the data collection in several stages, each of which could be considered an independent study…

 

…And my project grew out of proportions. One day I looked at my methodology chapter and thought: “I created a monster.”

 

My supervisor once told me that I want to fix the world. I do, one research project at a time… But maybe I exaggerated with my thesis… I had heard it before: “You want to do too much”. They told me a couple of times. Ok, ok. They told me LOTS of times.

 

I didn’t really understand it until I saw my plan written down and got scared by its monstrous dimensions. I can now accept that it encompasses too much. I do want to fix the world. But I cannot study everything right now. I have human, resource and time constraints.

 

So I will take control and narrow down my methodology.

 

I will fight and conquer my research.

No more monsters for me.

– Brenda Padilla

%d bloggers like this: