Chapter 3 of our
textbook asks us whether we favor a positivist/postpositivist or
interpretivist/constructivist view of social research.
Interpretivism/constructivism
questions a belief in an external reality, arguing that reality is
socially constructed on a group-by-group basis. Social scientists in this camp focus
on what meaning those certain social groups give to reality.
Positivism/postpositivism, on the
other hand, follows general laws of reality. Research of this kind is empirical
and employs the scientific method. It says that a social group’s perception of reality
doesn’t matter—reality is the same no matter what group you’re in. We might never
understand that reality fully (the postpositivism view), but it remains
consistent for everyone and every group.
We know that certain universal laws—laws
of thermodynamics, gravity, etc.—exist. And many of them are quite
counter-intuitive (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is worth a look if you’re
unfamiliar). But they still exist. So why would our research be interested in a
social group’s perceived reality when everything else in the universe—planets, tectonic plates, global warming—is studied using a,
well, universal one? Doesn’t the real value of research lie in the ability to understand
more of the world, not less?
No comments:
Post a Comment