IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v50y2016i1p317-325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Positivism: to what extent does it aid our understanding of the contemporary social world?

Author

Listed:
  • Md Hasan

Abstract

There is a stereotypical belief among many researchers that the social world is complex in nature, and it cannot be investigated by employing a positivist approach. While the extant body of literature mostly support this notion, this brief theoretical paper, however, presents some critical arguments against this and goes onto claim that positivism also aids our understanding of the contemporary social world to a certain extent. It has been argued that the quantifiable methods of the natural sciences are also appropriate for studying the social world in some cases, such as large-scale social surveys and cross-country social research. To begin with, a critical commentary on the history of positivism is provided and the essence of positivist epistemology in exploring different elements of the social world is then discussed. Finally, the paper establishes that both positivism and interpretivism can be seen as appropriate to some level of analysis of meaningful social action. The former is most suited for large-scale social surveys or for providing descriptive information about the social world while the latter is more appropriate to understand the complex actions of social members and to capture the multiple realities of the society. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Md Hasan, 2016. "Positivism: to what extent does it aid our understanding of the contemporary social world?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 317-325, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:50:y:2016:i:1:p:317-325
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-014-0150-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-014-0150-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-014-0150-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Caldwell, 1980. "Positivist Philosophy of Science and the Methodology of Economics," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 53-76, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang Liu, 2022. "Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zanotti, Gabriel J. & Cachanosky, Nicolás, 2015. "Implications Of Machlup’S Interpretation Of Mises’S Epistemology," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 111-138, March.
    2. Douglas J. Crookes & Martin P. De Wit, 2014. "Is System Dynamics Modelling of Relevance to Neoclassical Economists?," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 82(2), pages 181-192, June.
    3. Spash, Clive L., 2012. "Ecological Economics and Philosophy of Science: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Ideology," SRE-Discussion Papers 2012/03, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    4. Amavilah, Voxi Heinrich, 2012. "The Caldwellian Methodological Pluralism: Wishful Thoughts and Personal Tendencies," MPRA Paper 44656, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 28 Feb 2013.
    5. Spash, Clive L., 2012. "New foundations for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 36-47.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:50:y:2016:i:1:p:317-325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.