Abstract
Theory and practice of research in health social sciences involves a unique synergy of a range of quantitative, qualitative, and hybrid methodologies derived from parent disciplines of medicine, nursing, and various other branches of social sciences such as sociology and psychology. While the methodological diversity enhances the scope of research and implications of research findings, it also renders the necessity for the investigator to explicitly address the implicit theoretical stances and philosophical assumptions underpinning the evidentiary claims. Still inherent among the investigators in health social sciences is to present their evidentiary claims in binary terms of whether an intervention/initiative worked or not, as opposed to why it worked and for whom. This tendency to gauge the strength of evidence in terms of objectivity and replicability seems to be emerging from the deep rooted desires for control and prediction of phenomena under investigation as opposed to meaning-making. While taking the readers on a brief journey through the emergence of history and philosophy of western science, this chapter aims to provide a deeper understanding of two major philosophical foundations of research methodologies: positivism, a theoretical stance underpinning rigor and objectivity in science and scientific method, and realism, an ontological perspective examining the truth of mind-independent reality. It is suggested that a closer inspection of emergence of scientific inquiry and its underpinnings will facilitate a better understanding of research designs and outcomes, especially for contemporary complex environments in which various initiatives in health social sciences operate.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Achinstein P. Science rules: a historical introduction to scientific methods. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2004.
Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield; 2011.
Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. London: Routledge; 1975.
Bird A. Philosophy of science. London: Routledge; 2006.
Bourdeau M. Auguste comte. In: Zalta NE, editors. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition). 2008. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/comte/.
Boyd RN. On the current status of the issue of scientific realism. In: Hempel CG, Putnam H, Essler WK, editors. Methodology, epistemology, and philosophy of science. Dordrech: Springer; 1983. p. 45–90.
Cacioppo JT, Semin GR, Berntson GG. Realism, instrumentalism, and scientific symbiosis: psychological theory as a search for truth and the discovery of solutions. Am Psychol. 2004;59(4):214–23.
Capra F. The turning point. London: Flamingo; 1982.
Capra F. The Tao of physics: an exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism. London: Flamingo; 1992.
Chakravartty A. Scientific realism. In: Zalta NE, editor. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition). 2011. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/scientific-realism/.
Cochran M. Deweyan pragmatism and post-positivist social science in IR. Millennium. 2002;31(3):525–48.
Crotty M. The foundations of social science research. Crow Nest: Allen & Unwin; 1998.
Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(49):1–7.
Dardo M. Nobel laureates and twentieth-century physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
d’Espagnat B. On physics and philosophy, vol. 417. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.
Evangelopoulos G. Scientific realism in the philosophy of science and international relations. Unpublished PhD thesis. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); 2013.
Fox NJ. Post-positivism. In: Given LM, editor. The Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. London: SAGE; 2008. p. 661–664.
Grant BM, Giddings LS. Making sense of methodologies: a paradigm framework for the novice researcher. Contemp Nurse. 2002;13(1):10–28.
Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1994. p. 105–17.
Hjørland B. Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science. J Doc. 2005;61(1):130–55.
Kincaid H. Positivism in the social sciences. In: Edward JC, editor. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (Version 1.0). London: Routledge; 1998. p. 558–561.
Klee R. The Kuhnian model of science. In: Scientific inquiry: readings in the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 199–201.
Lee AS. Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organ Sci. 1991;2(4):342–65.
Maxwell J. What is realism, and why should qualitative researchers care. In: Maxwell J, editor. A realist approach for qualitative research. London: SAGE; 2012. p. 3–14.
Moreau KA, Eady K. Connecting medical education to patient outcomes: the promise of contribution analysis. Med Teach. 2015;37(11):1060–2.
Norman G. Generalization and the qualitative-quantitative debate. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2017;22(5):1051–5.
Pawson R, Tilley N. Realist evaluation. London: SAGE; 1997.
Reichenbach M, Cohen R. Hans Reichenbach – selected writings, 1909–1953, vol. 1. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1978.
Richard C. Logical empiricism. In: Zalta EN, editors. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. 2017. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/logical-empiricism/.
Riley DJ. The paradox of positivism. Soc Sci Hist. 2007;31(1):115–26.
Ritzer G, Stepnisky J. Classical sociological theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2017.
Russell B. History of Western philosophy: collectors edition. Abington: Routledge; 2013.
Sharrock WW. Kuhn: philosopher of scientific revolutions. Oxford: Polity Press; 2002.
Van Bavel J, Mende-Siedlecki P, Brady W, Reinero A. Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(23):6454–9.
Van Fraassen B. The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1980.
Wight C. Philosophy of social science and international relations. In: Walter C, Thomas R, Simmons B, editors. Handbook of international relations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2002. p. 23–51.
Wong G, Westhorp G, Greenhalgh J, Jagosh J, Greenhalgh T. RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016;14(96):1–18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Khanna, P. (2018). Positivism and Realism. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_59-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_59-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences