Research Methods

Drawing From Positivism and Interpretivism for a Mixed-Methods Approach

My drive to do original research was one of the reasons I decided to pursue a master’s degree, and it was in my Research Methods and Action Research courses where that drive grew and developed. They are the courses in which I was introduced to research designs and methods, including the differences between positivist work and interpretivist work, as detailed in this excerpt from one of my response papers in Research Methods:

A positivist first develops their concepts and theory first, then conducts experiments, structured interviews, surveys, etc. They look for a controlled environment, which positions their research as scientific. Their goal is to make the research reliable and objective by dealing in facts. This allows them to infer general conclusions about their research that may show cause and effect. Their approach allows them to operationalize their findings because they have developed a method in which to measure those results.

An interpretivist’s work is different in that it is not about structure. An interpretivist develops concepts throughout their research instead. They guide their work from an empathic point of view as they focus on ethnographic research in which they observe and potentially conduct unstructured interviews and surveys, which allow participants to share more details than in a positivist study. An interpretivist’s work is not viewed as scientific and does not infer cause and effect or generalizations. Instead, it is flexible and allows the researcher to find meaning and build rapport with participants, which helps the researcher understand what may be behind the issue or problem they are studying. They do not operationalize their findings because there is no unit of measurement. (Zechlin, 2021-b, p. 1)

In studying positivism and interpretivism, I was able to develop my own research design that incorporates both approaches. I drew from the work of Allan Colbern and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan in their book, Citizenship Reimagined and from Natasha Behl in her book, Gendered Citizenship in designing that research. By comparing the positivist approach in Citizenship Reimagined to the interpretevist work in Gendered Citizenship, I came to the conclusion that both methods are important in studying any topic, and we can gain vital information from both, especially when they work together.

My research included three stages, including a survey, 19 interviews, and two focus groups. The interviews and focus groups both took an interpretivist approach, while the survey was mixed. There were questions that could be easily coded and graphed, but there were also open-ended questions that allowed participants to describe their answers in detail. It was in studying research methods that I determined my design would provide the most well-rounded approach, as I describe in the same response paper from Research Methods:

In positivism, using specific units of measurement provides an objective, scientific perspective that is important for influencing change in the form of policy, whether political, societal, or religious. While the interpretivist approach is mostly subjective, it provides us with validity and meaning. One research study is not going to give us all the information we need to completely understand a subject, but as we pull several together, we start to find the different nuances that allow us to better understand why an issue exists and what steps we can take to attempt to fix it.

Positivist work and interpretivist work are both very important. Positivist work has the potential to influence policy. Its scientific nature gives policymakers concrete evidence on why things should change, which allows those policymakers to justify the policies they create. Interpretivist work has the potential to influence attitudes within communities. Those attitudes that develop within communities help fuel social movements that could persuade positivist researchers to conduct scientific studies supporting their movements and help make changes at by enacting policies at varying levels of leadership. (Zechlin, 2021-b, p. 4)

My research contrasts with other positivist work in that it is not scientific, but the questions framed from a positivist approach still provide an opportunity to quantify some of my findings. The questions framed from an interpretivist approach help bring meaning and validity to the work. It was through Research Methods and Action Research that I was able to gain the knowledge necessary to design and carry out my research.

Additionally, the Research Methods and Action Research courses allowed me to critically analyze various research designs by studying the journal articles published about them. In Research Methods, I analyzed a study about the genetic risk factors for suicide in Utah. The researchers noted that the "Rocky Mountain States have the highest-age-adjusted suicide rates in the US" with Utah "consistently in the top ten" (Coon et al, 2013, p. 1). Researchers took a positivist approach, which seems appropriate for a study on genetic risk factors. Their findings were compelling. In my analysis, however, I did note that suicide is a complex issue that cannot be fully explained by one factor. In my response paper, I described the additional steps of qualitative research I would take in a study on suicide in Utah, which included interviewing those who attempted but did not complete suicide, interviewing family and friends of victims and survivors, and conducting ethnographic research including observing the families involved in interviews. This would allow researchers to compare the genetic risk factors to other risk factors and possibly determine how they may influence and interact with each other.

I also analyzed two separate studies regarding the experiences of women in the Mormon Church, with one taking a positivist (quantitative) approach and the other taking an interpretivist (qualitative) one in my Action Research course. This analysis was deeply influential in my own research, considering the topic. The quantitatative study analyzed published literature from the Church and how women were represented in that literature and found that there was not much of a change in church teachings on womanhood throughout the 41 years they researched (Sumerau & Cragun, 2015). The qualitative study interviewed 28 women about their attitudes about gender roles within Mormonism (Beaman, 2001). They found that they could not generalize the women's experiences, but did find connected themes, which allowed them to categorize the women as "Molly Mormons" (conservative, Orthodox women), Mormon feminists, and moderates (Beaman, 2001). Through their study, they found that women internalize teachings on gender roles differently. By putting these two studies together, one can see that while the messages from the Church may remain the same or similar over the years, the way women interpret them can change on an individual level. Upon analyzing these two studies, I formed my own research design with the intent to get a broad picture of people's experiences within Mormonism.

As I have highlighted, my coursework in the MA SJHR program allowed me to recognize and analyze social justice and human rights issues that exist within Mormonism itself. It also allowed me to understand research methods and design in order to carry out my own study. The topic of religious trauma within any religion is not one that has been as heavily researched as other issues related to social justice and human rights. It is a growing discussion, and my research adds to that discussion from the perspective of Mormonism and ex-Mormonism. To learn more about my research, please follow the link below.

Read about my research:

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse