Positivism and Realism
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.
KeywordsPositivism Realism Ontology Epistemology Research Health Social sciences
- Achinstein P. Science rules: a historical introduction to scientific methods. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield; 2011.Google Scholar
- Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. London: Routledge; 1975.Google Scholar
- Bird A. Philosophy of science. London: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
- 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/.
- Capra F. The turning point. London: Flamingo; 1982.Google Scholar
- Capra F. The Tao of physics: an exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism. London: Flamingo; 1992.Google Scholar
- 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/.
- Crotty M. The foundations of social science research. Crow Nest: Allen & Unwin; 1998.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Dardo M. Nobel laureates and twentieth-century physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- d’Espagnat B. On physics and philosophy, vol. 417. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Fox NJ. Post-positivism. In: Given LM, editor. The Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. London: SAGE; 2008. p. 661–664.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Kincaid H. Positivism in the social sciences. In: Edward JC, editor. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (Version 1.0). London: Routledge; 1998. p. 558–561.Google Scholar
- Klee R. The Kuhnian model of science. In: Scientific inquiry: readings in the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 199–201.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Pawson R, Tilley N. Realist evaluation. London: SAGE; 1997.Google Scholar
- Reichenbach M, Cohen R. Hans Reichenbach – selected writings, 1909–1953, vol. 1. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1978.Google Scholar
- 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/.
- Ritzer G, Stepnisky J. Classical sociological theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2017.Google Scholar
- Russell B. History of Western philosophy: collectors edition. Abington: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
- Sharrock WW. Kuhn: philosopher of scientific revolutions. Oxford: Polity Press; 2002.Google Scholar
- Wong G, Westhorp G, Greenhalgh J, Jagosh J, Greenhalgh T. RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016;14(96):1–18.Google Scholar