Political Research Methods: Positivism and Realism Essay

Reading

The approaches to be discussed as the methods for conducting research are positivism, scientific realism, methodological individualism, and holism. Though each of the methods listed above pursues the same goal of defining a link between the variables in a research, there is a tangible difference between the methods that these approaches offer to a researcher. In addition, the correct use of research questions must be considered fundamental for a good research. Methodology is also essential to the success of the research outcomes, as it allows for choosing the mode in which the subject matter should be considered. Finally, research objectivity is the factor that the outcomes of a study hinge on.

Topics and Themes

1. Traditionally, three approaches are identified in the methodology of a qualitative study. According to the existing standards, these include ontology, epistemology and methodology. According to the existing definition, ontology allows for an identification of the nature of a certain phenomenon or object, whether animate or inanimate one. Epistemology helps figure out whether the research carried out contains the constructs that are knowable. As a rule, a social research presupposes an all-embracing analysis of the social phenomena that are under scrutiny, which means that the “knowability” of the research constructs is identified within the very first stage of the analysis. Last, but not least, methodology allows for an identification of the sources of knowledge. In other words, it helps answer the question concerning how people acquire knowledge or any kind of information, for that matter. When combined, the three approaches give a unique and very distinct notion about the phenomenon researched.
2. Because of the necessity to uphold to a range of ethical standards, a political research has not been deprived of value; quite on the contrary, the significance of value must be emphasized in a political research. However, in 1950s, the significance of value in scientific research was marginalized. As a result, quantifications are of a much greater significance than values in a qualitative research at resent. Social research is nowadays identified by the so-called research paradigms, which define the steps to be taken in the course of the study. Seeing that the paradigms used in social research depend greatly on the social standards and principles, it would be wrong to claim that political research is advanced with the help of unbiased science.
3. Methodological individualism is traditionally defined as a theory incorporating a paradigm that allows defining the patterns of behavior adopted by individuals. In other words, the specified approach helps analyze and predict the actions of individuals based on the social standards accepted within a particular society. Methodological individualism stands in sharp contrast to methodological holism, which, in its turn, identifies the factors restricting the actions of an individual and shaping the behavior of the latter. All kinds of rules, regulations, social standards, etc. are the subject of methodological holism study. Though the two notions may seem diametrically opposite at first, one must bear in mind that each of the methods helps view the society from the perspective of an individual. It seems that social entities embrace the huge variety of individual characteristics of the people in them and at the same time drag these unique characteristics to the lowest common denominator.
4. RQ, the abbreviation, which is translated as research questions, incorporates a question or a set of questions that are to be answered at the end of research. Traditionally, four key types of research questions are singled out; these are descriptive, explanatory, predictive, prescriptive, normative, and the type that incorporates descriptive and explanatory types into one. Descriptive questions correlate to the type of questions that are grammatically defined as special ones; in other words, these include who-, what-, when-, where-, how-, and why-questions. One must note, though, that the aforementioned type of arranging research questions may presuppose that the questions belonging to the same grammatical category can be related to different research categories. For example, the so-called explanatory questions seem very similar to the descriptive ones, as they also belong to the wh-questions family. However, in contrast to the descriptive questions, which help identify the relationships between the key variables, the explanatory ones help distill the reasons for these factors to relate to the same phenomenon. In other words, the link between various variables is created with the help of explanatory questions. Traditionally, the questions mentioned above incorporate who- and what-questions.
5. A hypothesis is a viable working explanation for the phenomena described in a research, which is later to be either proven right or wrong. A qualitative research design usually requires the incorporation of a standard hypothesis and a null hypothesis; thus, high precision and veracity of the research results is guaranteed. The null hypothesis subverts the expectations expressed by the researcher and means that no measurable results will be obtained in the course of the study.

Types of Questions

Example of a question

Throughout its entire history, people have been attempting at cognizing the world around them. Though the humankind has advanced impressively in its analysis of the environment and its role in it, the differences between one of the previous foundations for world cognition, i.e., positivism, and the current one, i.e., scientific realism, are weirdly few.

Based on the concept of observations and logical deductions, the theory of positivism presupposes that basic assumptions concerning a specific phenomenon or the properties of a certain object must be made based on scientific observations. Scientific realism, on the contrary, presupposes that the inclusion of unobservable entities into the range of phenomena to be studied is also acceptable. Herein the basic difference between the two notions lies; unlike scientific realism, positivism applauds to the study of the objects and phenomena that are rooted deeply into reality and can be located within the three-dimensional context.

When it comes to discussing the theoretical tenets that positivism is based on, one will inevitably mention the differentiation of the form of knowledge. Indeed, the type of knowledge form chosen for the research of a specific issue is crucial for the further course of the study and, therefore, defines the very phenomenon of the positivist approach to a considerable degree. Positivism searches for the forms of knowledge that will reinvent people’s perception of a specific phenomenon or object, thus, drawing a rather thick line between the social and the natural. In a certain way, the positivist approach to a research triggers the necessity to render the issue of nature vs. nurture by addressing both the social and the individualist specifics of human nature. Scientific realism, as opposed to positivism, paves the researcher’s way to cognizing the nature of phenomena and objects by defining their significance within the context of the contemporary society.

Another striking difference between positivism and scientific realism concerns the very nature of the phenomena. A closer look at the structure of social relativism will reveal that it is based on a dichotomy between positivism and anti-positivism; in other words, social relativism helps anchor the golden mean between the positivist approach and its exact opposite extreme. Though defined as a means to distinguish between positivism and scientific realism, the specified feature of the latter, in fact, can be viewed as a tool for both bridging the two notions and setting them apart. For instance, the idea of scientific relativism emerging on the ashes of the idealistic positivist approach allows making a supposition concerning the affinity between the notions. On the other hand, it is obvious that scientific relativism has evolved into something strikingly different to the positivist approach; this assumption leads inevitably to the conclusion that the two concepts are far apart from each other.

However, positivism has certain ties with scientific realism a well. For example, both tend to summarize empirical principles that serve as the key to developing theories and principles. In addition, both methods can be used as an instrument for calculation and predicting the alterations of the observable variables. Moreover, much like positivism, scientific realism is aimed at stretching the basic knowledge concerning the set of variables under consideration.

In addition, both the theory of positivism and the one of scientific research are based on the sets of different principles, they both base on the concept of a scientific research, i.e., a thoughtful analysis of the information gathered for the research. Indeed, both methods presuppose three key steps of carrying out a study, i.e., the collection of the relevant data, the processing of the information retrieved at the first stage, and the development of a solution to a specific problem identified at the beginning of the research. In other words, the two methods in question are linked to each other with the very principles that lie at their core.

Therefore, the phenomena in question have admittedly many elements in common, which means that each represents a part of an entity, or, to be more specific a stage of a long lasting process. The latter can be viewed from various perspectives, yet its purpose remains the same. It helps locate people’s place in the universe, thus, identifying the pathways for further development. Although positivism and scientific realism may seem miles apart from each other in terms of the perspectives, from which they offer a researcher to view a certain problem, there still is an obvious link between them. The above-mentioned link helps define scientific realism and positivism as the concepts that are related to each other closely, therefore, creating the premises for two different analysis approaches implemented for specific subject matter to deliver the results that will have obvious points of contact.

Example definition: “independent variable”

An independent variable is the factor that is altered in the course of research so that its effect on the dependent variable could be tested. As a rule, an independent variable is a thing in itself that cannot be split into separate elements; instead, it is viewed as an indivisible entity. In order to provide an example of an independent variable, one must come up with a particular research scenario. For instance, in a qualitative study aimed at measuring the effects workplace stress factors on the development of depression and the related disorders, the above-mentioned negative factors, such as noises, workload level, relationships with employees and managers, etc. can be viewed as independent variables that affect the measured one (i.e., the depression development and rates).

Based on the information represented in the excerpt under analysis one may assume that the author attempts at asking a descriptive question. Indeed, while focusing closely on the issues that can be viewed as the answers to general questions, the author of the specified discourse obviously tries to locate the links between the factors surrounding the subject matter. In other words, the person, who wrote the given piece of text attempts at asking a descriptive question (a why-question), which falls under the category of special questions. Therefore, the researcher invites an examination of the factors that contributed to the creation of the situation under analysis.

The hypothesis that the author is trying to advance is that ideology is an essential element in the design of the strategies adopted by not only parties, but also entire governments. The ideologies that the parties in question promote in a certain country can be viewed as the independent variable in this hypothesis, as it is used in order to create the environment for altering the dependent variables. In its turn, the change in the strategies adopted by the state governments under the pressure of major factors, including ideologies, is the dependent one, as it is altered y the independent variables.