Bicol University

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Legazpi, City

ACTIVITY 4

Student : Ma. Sharlyn A. Navia

Subject : PhD 302.01 – Qualitative Research Methods
Program : Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership and Management

Professor : Ma. Jane B. Mascariñas, Ph.D.

……
Empiricism provides a strong foundation for the philosophy of positivism. The core tenet
of positivism is that science is the sole reliable source of knowledge (Research Mehodology,
n.d.). According to positivism, the only way to acquire factual knowledge is through sensory
experience. Studies based on the positive paradigm consider that the universe is objective and
external, and are based on facts (Wilson, 2010). According to positivism, genuine knowledge is
defined as knowledge that is derived from the positive affirmation of theories that are framed
using strictly scientific methods and are based on gathering empirical, observable, and
measurable evidence. Such knowledge is related to the specific goal of reasoning (The Basics
of Philosophy, n.d.). The notion of positivism is that through scientific methods, it is possible to
demonstrate how reality reflects itself (Cruickshank, 2011). According to this objective
understanding of reality, knowledge can be gained by experience or perception. This gives rise
to the educational supposition that a teacher who is assumed to be an expert conveys their
knowledge to their students (Potter, 2013).
Positivism is a rejection of metaphysics in the fullest sense. It is a viewpoint that asserts
that the sole purpose of knowing is to provide a description of the things that we experience.
Simply sticking to what we can observe, and measure is the goal of science. A positivist would
contend that it is impossible to have knowledge of anything else. The behaviorists in psychology
from the middle of the 20th century come to mind when I think about positivism. These were the
fabled "rat runners" who held the view that psychology could only be used to examine things
that could be viewed and measured directly. These were not appropriate subjects for scientific
psychology because we cannot directly see emotions, ideas, etc., even though we may be able
to assess some of the bodily and physiological accompaniments.
Since the middle of the 20th century, our perceptions of science have altered
significantly. The most significant change has likely been our transition from positivism to post-
positivism. Post-positivism is a complete rejection of the core principles of positivism; it is not a
slight modification or revision of the positivist perspective. A post-positivist can start by
acknowledging that there are some similarities between how scientists think and conduct their
research and how the average person thinks. The process of reasoning in science and common
sense is very similar. There is just a variation in degree between the two, not in kind. For
instance, scientists adhere to certain protocols to ensure that observations are reliable,
verifiable, and consistent. Though, if you think about it, when the stakes are great, even in
regular life, we become much more cautious about measurement. We don't always reason so
carefully. Consider how the most responsible parents constantly monitor their young children,
taking note of details that non-parents would never notice.
All of this is obviously not for the weak of heart. The confusing web of philosophical
presumptions that modern philosophers of science debate has led to the confusion of many
graduate students, in my experience. And don't assume that I don't think this is significant
information. But in the end, I often become pragmatic about these issues. There is every reason
to expect that philosophers will continue to argue these topics for many more millennia because
they have been for thousands of years. Those of us who are working educators and researchers
ought to periodically monitor this discussion (perhaps every hundred years or so would be about
right). When conducting research, we should consider the assumptions we make about the
world. We must act now, though, rather than waiting for the philosophers to resolve the issue.
We must finish our own task first, after all.
 Positivism's incapacity to make a distinction between the social and natural worlds is
perhaps its biggest flaw, particularly in relation to the social sciences. Positive scientists' stress
on the unanimity of the sciences ignores three crucial differences between the natural and
social sciences. First, social structures are products of and do not exist in a vacuum from the
actions they are shaped by. Marriage is a common example since it is both a social institution
and a lived experience. The fact that something is a lived experience will change how an agent
views it. This will ultimately influence the institution itself because it will have an impact on how
an agent interacts with it. Second, agents reflect on the institutions to which they belong and
adjust their behavior in accordance; social structures do not exist independently of the agents'
viewpoints. In the natural world, such a process is unheard of. Third, because of the actions of
agents, social structures will be shaped. As a result, they will vary across time and space,
among other variables. Perhaps positivism's greatest shortcoming about the social sciences is
its inability to recognize and address these obvious contrasts between the social and natural
worlds.
The appeal of positivism in the social sciences is immediately apparent. It promises to
provide the certainty and reassurance that the scientific sciences seem to enjoy to
circumstances that are frequently very complex. However, such assurance is frequently
misplaced in both the social and scientific sciences. Instead of objecting to what positivism
seeks to achieve, the issue is the elevated status of scientific discoveries. It would seem a little
foolish to think that any method can provide the fully conclusive knowledge that positivism
claims to give the difficulties that rival epistemologies have shown about the philosophy of
science. Though contemporary positivists may no longer embrace the broad assertions made in
the beginning by thinkers like Comte, there are still several problems that cannot be overlooked
when attempting to make claims to having objective knowledge of the phenomena that the
social sciences are interested in.

References
Cruickshank, J. (2012). Positioning positivism, critical realism, and social constructionism in the
health sciences: a philosophical orientation. Nursing Inquiry, (1), 71.
Potter, M. K. (2013). Constructivism in the Shadow of a Dead God. International Journal for The
Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 7(1), 1-12.
Research Methodology. (n.d.). Retrieved 9 October 2022 from https://research
methodology.net/research philosophy/positivism/
The Basics of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved 9 October 2022 from
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_positivism.html
Wilson, J. (2010). Retrieved from SAGE:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/097215091101200211