#interpretivist

Have you ever wondered how researchers uncover new insights in the field of social science? There are several ways researchers can go about determining whether a theory is true or false.

There are two basic approaches to research methods in the social sciences: positivism and interpretivism. The positivist approach uses scientific quantitative methods, while the interpretivist approach uses qualitative methods. Both of these approaches help explain social behaviors and contribute to making discoveries.

This web by Revise Sociology is very helpful for understanding the differences between positivism and interpretivism.

Mehmet Aksoy conducted qualitative research within the interpretivist approach to determine the causes of social media addiction in individuals. Qualitative research typically involves participant observation or unstructured interviews. This particular study made use of unstructured interviews to attempt to explain this human behavior. This study produced a valid contribution to the mass communication field because it determined the causes of social media addicts in a more clear way. The findings showed that common reasons for social media addiction were lack of friends, feeling of fulfillment, or fear of missing out. The researcher also discovered a beginning and continuity phase of social media addiction.

Azam Shokri and Georgios Dafoulas conducted quantitative research within the positivist approach to analyze the role of social networks within educational contexts. With the rise of virtual and e-learning, these researchers wanted to examine the usefulness of Facebook on student performance. The study utilized official data collection through spreadsheets, surveys, and polls. This quantitative data provided hard evidence that the role of Facebook in conjunction with learning activities produced positive student performance. The researchers admit that further studies must be done to examine social behavior within this context.

Okay this post might does not have anything to do with my thesis but I felt that there is a need to rant here. This stems from what I wrote in my methodology chapter. Yes that's right I have a methodology chapter! So here we go from the beginning, where I used this quote. 

“The social scientist, like the physical scientist, must specify his methods of measurement.”[1]

This is a true statement a methodological approach is important for any study. But I then made the mistake of having a positivist read my chapter. Because after that point I stated that: for my methodological approach to be appropriate the context must be understood to choose the method. Is that a crime having a methodological approach determined by what you are studying? I think that we mustn't dictate an approach which might then not work. Needless to say that the arguement with said positivist went further to how we interpretivists choose to do things. I have no problem with generalization of theory but we must also know that certain things don't need to always be generalizeable to be true. If it is happening surely it deserves to be studied? But I digress, all I want to say is this... just because I am in interpretivist does not mean that I don't believe that methodology is important. So I am not wrong in using the quote above because it is important to how one measured a phenomenon to be able to understand the results. To read more about this here is a link that gives you a good introduction.