Modern Political Concepts

(GS F211)
Assignment-2
Essay on

Relevance of the Social Sciences

(Submitted to: Solano Da Silva, Instructor in-charge, and
Bhargava Srinivasa, Teaching Assistant)
By:

1. Harshwardhan Lodha

2014A4PS189G

2. Suhaib Soni

2014A7PS109G

3. Nikhil Virmani

2014A7PS035G

4. Mehul Garg

2014B4A7805G

5. Kartik Aggrawal

2014A3PS333G

6. Sanyam Vinayak

2014A4PS345G

Introduction
The objective of all sciences, natural, social or engineering, narrowly speaking,
is to better understand the world (in their own context) around us. Furthermore,
it is to use this understanding of the world for improving the conditions of
human existence. Given this common purpose of all the sciences, their
approaches towards research and any particular problem are not identical. The
very nature of social science easily distinguishes it from the natural and the
engineering sciences. The epistemology, ontology and methodology of social
sciences is fundamentally different and broader than that of the natural sciences.
This essay sets out to analyse this difference in the EOM of the two and what it
means for the students and scholars of science.
The two most prominent perspectives on research, positivism and
interpretivism, will be looked at and compared with respect to their EOM. Their
roles in the natural and social enquiries will be scrutinized. This analysis of
EOMs is extremely relevant because as we progress further through the
advancements in all the sciences the contemporary problems and questions
faced by the scientists may not directly and decisively fall under one discipline
of science. Moreover, since interdisciplinary research and study is continually
increasing, so is the difficulty in demarcating and categorizing these sciences.
Disciplines like economics, game theory and other such scholarly endeavours
have components from all of these sciences. Thus, to understand the modern
world and address it problems it is imperative that a student at least has a little
taste of all of these approaches.

Ontology
Etymologically, Ontology is the study of the being or the existing. More
specifically it asks what can be said to exist and how does it exist. It concerns
itself with nature of reality.
In positivist ontology, the world is generally considered external (Carson et al.,
2001). Positivism portrays the position that social entities exist in reality
external to social actors concerned with their existence (Saunders et. al., 2009).
Alternatively, objectivism is an ontological position that asserts that social
phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social
actors (Bryman, 2003). This outlook assumes that there is a single objective
reality to any research phenomenon or situation regardless of the researchers
perspective or belief (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Thus, here, there is a rigid
separation between the researcher and the object of research. This separation
helps in maintaining a clear distinction between science and personal
experience, fact and value judgement.

The objectivism in the positivist approach allows for a clear theoretical focus in
research from the onset and a greater scope for the researcher to retain control
of the research process.
The interpretivist approach is in contrast with the singular reality discussed
before. The interpretivist believe that the reality is multiple and relative
(Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). In interpretivism, the researcher is not independent
of his research subjects and the reality in question is socially constructed. His
views and action, or lack thereof, have a definite effect on the research.
Interpretivism argues that it is impossible to produce a result which is free of
personal bias and value judgement.
The subjectivity of interpretivism allows for more complex and contextual
research problems which was not possible in the case of positivism.

Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and methods of acquiring knowledge.
It inquires what can be counted as justified true belief, what is the nature of
these beliefs, are there any limits to these beliefs and if so, where and how do
we draw the line.
Since positivist believe in the existence of singular objective reality, they
believe that it is possible to acquire knowledge about it which is also objective
and singular in nature. They seek to make absolute laws which are basically
value, time and context free generalizations. They believe this is possible
because human actions can be explained as a result of real causes that
temporarily precedes their behaviour and the researcher and his research
subjects are independent and do not influence each other (Hudson and Ozanne,
1988). Thus, their goal is to provide explanations, rather than understandings,
and strong predictions which can be applied or used irrespective of the
conditions of research or application.
Positivists generally have a deductive and theory testing approach towards
gaining knowledge.
Interpretivists on the other hand reject the idea of objective knowledge. They
argue that knowledge acquired through research is socially constructed rather
than objectively determined (Carson et al., 2001). Because of their belief that
researcher and his subjects are interdependent and mutually interactive they
begin the research with a sort of prior insight of the context but assume that this
will be insufficient to develop a fixed research plan because of multiple,
complex and contextual nature of reality. Therefore, the researcher has to
remain open to attainment of new knowledge throughout the study and lets the
body of knowledge develop with the help of his subjects. The use of such an
emergent and collaborative approach is consistent with the interpretivist belief
that humans have the ability to adapt, and that no one can gain prior knowledge
of time and context bound social realities (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Thus, the
goal of interpretivist research is to understand, in contrast to explain, and

interpret the meanings in human behaviour rather than to generalize and predict
causes and effects (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). For an interpretivist researcher
it is important to understand motives, meanings, reasons and other subjective
experiences which are time and context bound (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).
Interpretivists generally have an inductive and theory building approach
towards gaining knowledge.

Methodology
Having gained some insight into ontology and epistemology, we must now
move on to the methods applied in the two approaches.
Positivists tend to use a host of mathematical and statistical methods. These
adhere to specifically structured research techniques to uncover single and
objective reality (Carson et al., 2001). These methods produce results which are
quantitative in nature. Positivists strive to use consistent, rational and logical
approach.
A lot of research in the positivist camp is experimental. This has the benefit of
controlled conditions in which the effects of variation of one variable on another
can be observed and studied.
Apart from experiments, positivist research include methods like measurements,
correlations, statistical logic, verification etc. Data collection is done through
the means of surveys, questionnaires and random samplings.
Due to a well-defined method and a clear conception of what is expected data
collection in positivist research is both easier and economical. It is also easier to
compare data with previous results or data obtained in different context because
the inferences to be drawn are expected to be time and context free
generalizations.
But positivist research can get inflexible with its clear theoretical focus as it is
tough to change direction in the middle of research, especially after data
collection has already begun.
Interpretive methodology positions the meaning-making practices of human
actors at the centre of scientific explanation. In interpretive methodology,
researcher does not start with concepts determined a priori but rather seeks to
allow these to emerge from encounters in "the field". Interpretive research
focuses on analytically disclosing those meaning-making practices, while
showing how those practices configure to generate observable outcomes.
Interpretivists, thus, tend to avoid rigid structures such as in positivist research
and adopt a more personal and flexible research structural framework (Carson et
al., 2001) which is receptive to capturing meanings in human interaction (Black,
2006) and make sense of what is perceived as reality (Carson et al., 2001).
Interpretivists try to elucidate meaning out of all the data that they collect and

thus their data collections methods tend to be significantly different from those
of positivists. Interpretivists typically use methods like surveys, ethnography, in
depth interviews and deep analysis for data collection. These tend to provide
data and inferences which are more qualitative in nature and therefore facilitates
a better and deeper understanding of the how and the why.
But these methods of data collection are usually very time consuming. Also,
data analysis can get to be extremely challenging and complex depending on the
context.

Role in natural and social science

From the onset it must seem obvious that positivism is made for natural
sciences and interpretivism is perfectly suited for social sciences. The natural
world seems to perfectly follow suit with respect to ontology, epistemology and
methodology of positivism and thus, its study, natural science should use this
approach. Whereas the social world is inherently complex and dependent on the
observer, his/her relationship with the subjects, subjects interaction with
themselves etc. This socially constructed reality falls directly under the camp of
interpretivism. Further, the problems addressed in each of these respective
studies seem to indicate the same thing.
But in reality all sciences or any particular research do not use a purely
positivist or a purely interpretivist approach but a combination of both in
varying degree of composition. Generally, in research based in natural sciences,
positivism tends to be the prominent perspective whereas in social sciences
interpretivism takes the stage. Both positivism and interpretivism have their
own sets of advantages and disadvantages which help decide to what extent a
research approach should be positivist or interpretivist.
For example, even in natural sciences, sometimes interpretivism makes a
significant contribution. Consider Quantum mechanics, a field in which all
phenomenon is based on conscious observation and interpretation. Also, to
attach meaning to the findings of quantum mechanics different perspectives
have been provided with varied interpretations. Philosophically any of these
interpretations could be true and so for the time being they all constitute the
reality.
And in social sciences positivism plays a significant role which might have been
understated in the whole of this essay. Essentially, the role of positivism and
interpretivism may as well be fifty-fifty in the social sciences. There have been
lots of efforts to find some universal truths in the social world. Behavioural
psychology might be an example for this. And although interpretivism does
seem to be better suited to social sciences than positivism, positivism plays a
significant enough role not to be overlooked. But in the natural sciences the
converse is not true. In natural sciences, positivism has been and still remains
the hegemonic way of research.

Since the rise of natural scientific knowledge from renaissance, positivism has
generally been the attitude adopted by the researchers. This has become so
prevalent that a lot of people consider positivism itself to be the scientific
method. Relatively, interpretivism has lost a lot of fervour among the nonresearchers who do not consider it to be as credible as positivism. This is
especially evident when someone refers to social sciences as soft sciences in
contrast with natural sciences being called hard sciences. This promotes the
popular false perception that social sciences and consequently interpretivist
research results are not subjected to the same amount of rigor as the natural
sciences and positivist research results and do not possess the same amount of
credibility.
Natural Sciences are lucky in the sense that most of the knowledge associated
with them, adheres to the positivist ideology. This is not true for social sciences
where both positivism and interpretivism must play a role and more work and
rigor is required to establish knowledge and meaning, since it is broader in its
approach. And since it is considerably younger than the body of natural sciences
this has not happened much. But that doesnt make social sciences or
interpretivism any less credible. Contrarily, it provides even more scope in these
disciplines for ground-breaking and cutting-edge breakthroughs to be made.

Relevance of Social Science for Science (natural) and Technology

students
As already said earlier, a lot of problems faced by modern world and humanity
may not fall directly under either natural or social sciences but a combination of
both and the approaches to each of these problem can vastly differ based on a
multitude of criteria. The future scientists and engineers, who are expected to,
and a significant portion of whom might also want to, change the world for
better and improve the conditions of humanity, need to be exposed to all of
these approaches and methods so that they can make an informed decision in
how to go about the research process or the solution of a particular problem. In
their normal discourse of science and technology they have already come across
positivism but due to the lack of interpretivism in these courses and because of
the conventional public opinion a lot of them do not even know about
interpretivism as an acceptable way to go about research and problem solving.
Having these students study the social sciences could fulfil a multitude of
purposes. First, it gives them a better idea and perspective about the hardships
plaguing the world. Second, it introduces interpretivism to them as legitimate
way of pursuing scholarly work, since it is integral in the social sciences and
hence broadens their horizons. Third, through the interpretivist methods of
interacting directly with the subjects and reality and through content of social
sciences, it might instil in them a much needed civic and ethical outlook. There
are, of course, a lot of other points and argument in favour of relevance of social
sciences for these students which havent been mentioned because they fall out

of the scope of this essay. Regardless, it seems safe to say that (to the authors, at
least) this relevance of social sciences does not seem debatable.

Conclusion
Thus, through the length of this essay, we have identified two different
approaches of research and problem solving, i.e., Positivism and Interpretivism.
Their Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology was analysed and compared.
Then their roles in natural and social sciences was looked upon and scrutinized.
The authors realized how one ideology might be more preferable to a particular
discipline than the other and that both of these ideologies have significant power
and importance attached to them. Lastly, then, drawing on all these analyses, in
the second last section of this essay which serves as a pseudo-conclusion,
relevance of social sciences was argued as relevant for the students of science
and technology. Finally, here, before we conclude, we go back to where we
started. That is, with the objectives of all sciences, which is to procure and
provide a better understanding and explanation of the world around us and to
use this understanding to further the interests of humanity. After researching and
writing this essay, we conclude by realizing and saying that the best way to
fulfil those objectives is to have an open space of ideas where any of the
disciplines or ideologies can constructively contribute, to realize how much of
each ideology must play a role and that no discipline or ideology can be
completely ignored.
[Word count: 2463]

Bibliography/list of references
1. Black, I. (2006). The presentation of interpretivist research. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 9(4), 319324.
2. Bryman, A. (2003). Social research methods. London: Oxford University
Press
3. Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., and Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative
Marketing Research. London: Sage

4. Hudson, L., and Ozanne, J. (1988). Alternative Ways of Seeking

Knowledge in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4),
508521.
5. Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., and Lewis, P. (2009). Research Methods for
Business Students.
6. Prabash Edirisingha, Interpretivism and Positivism. wordpress online forum.