Effects of Researcher Assumptions on Methodology
We live our lives in the context of a perspective that affects our way of thinking, our behavior, the manner in which we organize our lives, as well as our approach to research (Ryan, 2006). We make assumptions in research based on the worldview or mental model through which we see the world. According to Ratner (2002), a researcher’s assumptions influence their study topic, hypothesis formulation, data collection methods, and data interpretation. The values of an investigator define the world that they study (Ratner, 2002). For instance, objective researchers tend to have positivist ideological worldviews.
Positivism influences a scientific, systematic approach to research where a quantitative methodology is utilized. Quantitative methodologies usually put a focus on the confirmatory part of research. They emphasize on hypothesis formulation and testing the hypothesis using collected numerical data. The objectives of quantitative methodologies are to measure, quantify, and to find the extent of an individual phenomenon. These methodologies aim at producing reliability and validity. To ensure validity they make use of “careful sampling, appropriate instrumentation, as well as the appropriate statistical application of data” (Gray, 2013). Reliability in quantitative methodologies leads to choices that show consistency and replicability when measured at different times, with different instruments, and different groups of participants. Positivism influences researchers to use data collection instruments that are validated and structured and to ensure precise measurement (Gray, 2013). The collected data is then subjected to statistical analysis to test for relationships between variables. Positivists look at research in terms of “facts, figures, statistics, writing, evaluation, objectivity, science, and logic” (Ryan, 2006).
Interpretivism, on the other hand, tends to incline towards subjectivity and quantitative approaches to research (Ratner, 2002). Interpretivists view reality as “socially constructed and diverse” i.e. reality is dependent on the observer’s perceptions, intentions, experiences, and beliefs (Weber, 2004). Interpretivistic views reject the assumption that nature is uniform. Per se, these researchers employ investigative methods that look into social perceptions and attitudes and how they are shaped by cultural beliefs (Weber, 2004). This is why interpretivism inclines towards qualitative methods of research that aim at describing experiences, emphasize meaning and explore the nature of certain phenomena such as ethnographies and case studies (Gray, 2013). This methodological approach utilizes unstructured instruments of data collection such as interviews and observation. Since findings are dependent on the researcher’s perceptions, experience, and beliefs, interpretivist researchers in effect become measurement instruments (Weber, 2004). The data collected in qualitative methods usually has high validity but low reliability.
Personal Assumptions
Personally, I have realized that I tend to incline towards objective approaches to research. I view and think of research as facts, numbers, and logic. As a result, I find myself (sometimes unconsciously) selecting structured methods of data collection. I prefer numerical data that I can interpret statistically. Having a positivistic theoretical perspective, I make the following assumptions:
Reality exists separately from the observer. The subject (researcher) and the object (study phenomenon) exist independently. This characteristic is referred to as the dualistic nature of positivism.
Reality exists outside the human mind thus human knowledge is built on an objective and independent reality
Research objects have inherent qualities that are independent of the investigator.
Research methods such as scientific experiments, field studies, and surveys produce significant empirical data, and the statistical analysis of such data reveals underlying regularities.
A researcher’s conclusion is true when it corresponds to the reality that is in existence outside the human mind.
Data collection methods should yield data that is valid and reliable
Reliability of research findings is indicated by replicability of the results over time, instruments, and research participants.
Positivism versus Interpretivism
Quantitative methods of data collection yield numerical data that is objective, reliable, and valid. Numerical data is easy to categorize and analyze statistically. Though data collected by interpretivist researchers usually shows high levels of validity, the data is characterized by low levels of reliability. The data gathered by positivist researchers can be replicated easily by different researchers at different times using different respondents. Thus, such data can be tested for reliability. Data from interpretivist researchers, however, cannot be tested for reliability since it is dependent on personal values, opinions, and perspectives. Quantitive research methodologies that are mainly employed by positivists produce large quantities of empirical data that can easily be generalized and applied to larger populations. On the other hand, interpretivist studies cannot be generalized because data collected is specific, unique, and relative. It is also affected by the passions, values, and emotions of the researcher.
According to Weber (2004), brilliant and effective researchers choose research methods that fit well with their subject of study. As a researcher, I am interested in objective topics of study that led to objective inquiries. I, therefore, prefer a positivist approach since it augers well with my research questions and the methodology assists me in supporting or dispelling hypotheses by deduction.
References
Gray, E. G. (2013). Doing Research in the Real World. Los Angeles: SAGE
Ratner, C. (2002). Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology. Qualitative Social Research Vol 3(3).
Ryan, A. B. (2006). Post- Positivist Approaches to Research. Retrieved 25 Feb 2016. From http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/874/1/post-positivist_approaches_to_research.pdf
Weber, R. (Mar 2004). The Rhetoric of Positivism versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1).
