I thought that this reading did a great job of really explaining post-positivism, and I have a much clearer picture of both of these after reading. The relation between positivism and post-positivism is that while they both rely on inquiry and the search for truth, Post-positivism does not derive everything from pure indisputable facts the same way that positivism does. While post-positivism evolved from positivism, in some additional reading that I was doing about these two, I read that “post-positivism is the critique of positivism”.
I think that post-positivism in general is a benefit to educational research, and after this reading I believe that this is the paradigm that I relate the most to as an inquirer. Opening your research up beyond just data and hard facts is beneficial in this field since there are many other factors that play into success in education and they are ever changing ways that it is being developed. I also agreed with the reading when he said “It is an aid to competence if inquirers avoid what has been called a ‘confirmatory stance’” (Phillips p 56).
Positivism believes that reality is out there to be studied, captured and understood; however, post-positivism argues that reality exists, but is never fully apprehended, only approximated.
Both positivism and post-positivism contribute to the education research on the methodology of knowledge building. Positivism gained knowledge by experiment, quasi-experiments, surveys, or correlational studies, and produced facts, theories, laws, and predictions; however, post-positivism obtained knowledge by rigorously defined qualitative methods, frequency counts, low-level statistics, and produced generalisations, descriptions, patterns, grounded theory.
Positivism: reality is ‘out there’ an absolute that can be discovered and measured with work. Post positivism: reality is ‘out there’ but there may be limits to our ability to accurately capture it. Positivism and Post positivism are related to each other, by the fact that each paradigm believes that reality is ‘out there’. Positivists are like reality is out there separate to us and would say that we could eventually perfect our measures of the universe and we would be able to understand everything perfectly. But Post positivist will say that reality is out there, but there are limits to a human’s ability to accurately capture it and understand it and comprehend it. And it could be we would not be able to understand it perfectly and it is also that our ways for measuring things are flawed. The positivist will be like, we will improve the ways of measuring and one day we will get to the point where we would perfectly understand it. While Post positivist will be like, we probably would not ever get perfect instruments to fully understand things. The universe is so complicated that creatures within it, for us to understand, it would have to sort of transcend the universe. Positivism and Post positivism are like hard natural sciences.
First I really wish I had some of these readings last semester as I was STRUGGLING through two theory classes. All of the modules so far define everything so nicely and really help me understand all of the nuances that make them similar and different.
As far as positivism and post-positivism, I was surprised how the reading down played the relationship between the two. Positivism is defined as a narrow view of science and post- positivism is simply what came after. Other google searches and reading place them as opposites to one another which I definitely understood after I finished the reading. Post positivism is centered around the idea that there are certain things we are warranted in accepting as true, but something being and absolute truth is not possible. We can understand causation but never fully; we are always constrained by physical reality. The validity of ideas depends on the trustworthiness and competence of the researcher.
I personally see the approach as beneficial because it leaves room for ideas and methods to always be challenged. As a post positivist approaching things believing no knowledge is secure or fully true removes some of those boundaries seen in other sciences. Being constrained only by reality itself, in my opinion, leaves wide open space to study and interpret. It somewhat forces researchers to look at and respect the big picture that is there in front of us.
I appreciated the insight this reading provided - I have a much clearer grasp on these theoretical stances than I had previously, which will be helpful in carrying conversations on these topics with other researchers.
Essentially, positivism holds that there is an objective reality that we can identify and measure through observation of natural phenomena. It relies heavily on senses, which produce concrete information that it holds as expressions of a sense of reality. It's an empirical approach, which includes the possibility of establishing a set of universally agreed upon facts, so long as those facts are grounded in physical, sense-based observation.
Post-positivism is an evolution of this theory, which claims that the relationship between the researcher and the subject of their observation, by its nature, alters or even corrupts the results of that observation, and that the 'facts' that are taken in as a result should be viewed through the lens of that relationship.
Each of these approaches can have drawbacks in education. Proceeding from pure positivism can give a false sense of confidence to a researcher, leading to overly bold claims, or people taking the results of research as 'fact' without applying any skepticism. Post-positivism taken to an extreme, however, can lead to a different kind of overconfidence. If there is no objective reality, than there is no 'better' way to do things, and no such thing as 'evidence-based practice'. This can lead to the resurrection of defunct and at times harmful technologies (such as facilitated communication).
Ultimately, I think the skepticism and openness to embrace qualitative methods that comes from postpositivism is helpful, but that one must be realistic about the existence of certain things as measurable, countable, and relatively 'real'.
Positivism posits that absolute truths exist for human beings to discover through scientific methods. Postpositivism posits that truths, as determined by humans, will never be absolute because they inherently include fallacies that are inescapable. People can come closer and closer to the truth but will never actually know an absolute truth. One example of this is the claim that there were only 7 planets in our solar system and the text talks about the belief, at the time of publication, was that 9 planets are in our solar system. Interestingly enough, today we believe that there are only 8 planets in our solar system. The idea is that knowledge can change and evolve with additional knowledge.
In regards to education research, the text references the idea of cause and effect based on humans’ ability to use reasoning (mentioning that reasoning can be influenced by societal factors). I agree that in a perfect vacuum of a world, people may generally choose what is the most rational but that is not the world we live in. One example that the text cites is the parents who are looking for the best school to send their child who has special needs, weighing the pros and cons of the different schools and what they offer. This example is quite short sighted. In what world are these authors living in where parents can simply choose to send their child to whichever school they like? Students are assigned a public school education based on where they live and how the local government chooses to district their schools. If parents are looking at where they would live in order to determine their child’s supports, they would have to consider how much it costs to live in that location, available employment, transportation, etc. This example is unrealistic because the social factors that parents may be dealing with are all considerations on which school their child will attend. Of course parents would love for their child to attend a school where they can be successful but that is not a reality for many. The idea that people make choices based on their ability to rationalize is faulty because it does not take into account the social factors that must also be considered. I do appreciate the fact that postpositivism calls for a new way to look at social science methodologies as we cannot conduct social science research in the same way as we do physics or biology. We could potentially conduct research on people to identify what the majority would potentially do but, in my opinion, the majority of participants in a study don’t matter unless we can reach all people. If we spent more time learning how to connect with one another through all of our differences, we would have a better opportunity at reaching successes, which seems to be the main goal of educational research.
Post-positivism grew out of positivist movements by philosophers who had widely varying perspectives of science and research. Unlike positivism, post-postivism claims that the are no “absolute truths,” and that our ideas “truth” evolve as we learn more about a topic. They mention that what we believe to be true today, may be different tomorrow. Some philosophers who identify as post-positivists would say that we’re gradually inching closer toward a truth but our experiences inform what we believe to be true. They would also say that our experiences and what we’ve previously learned tend to influence our idea of what is real and desirable. We may be better able to claim that statements are false, more than we are able to claim that a statement is absolutely true. Postpositivists may say that researchers should veer away from looking for an absolute truth and shift toward a mindset of contributing knowledge toward a topic.
One of the suggestions that the article’s author gave, was to conduct research looking for factors that may disprove an idea of what is right (they call this a confirmatory stance), and instead look for evidence where an idea may be incorrect. This helps researchers consider that there may be alternative explanations for their findings and experiences. I argue that mindset is beneficial to educational research. Instead of getting stuck in what we believe to be true, this can open up our minds to variables we never thought to take into consideration.
Michelle Carter A relationship between positivism and post-positivism is control over knowledge. Positivism seems to believe that we have control over our biases and can measure and define our reality with accuracy. Knowledge is controlled by our ability to be objective and free of bias which can lead to the discovery of absolute truths. Post-positivism seems to assert that biases exist and complete objectivity cannot exist, so the pursuit of absolute truth is futile. Knowledge is a causal relationship. And if we know the cause of something we can control it. Both of these have benefits and problems in educational research. Having completely objective research of a measurable reality would make educational policy decisions so much easier. If everything were causal then all problems could be solved, or at least mitigated. I am not sure if I can explain this, but my challenge with both of these views is that it puts the researcher/inquirer in control of the knowledge and to some extent makes them “owners” of the knowledge.
After reading the article I google "positivism" to see how it compares to the article's description: Positivism is a philosophical theory that states that "genuine" knowledge is exclusively derived from experience of natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, as interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge.
The article details how both are grounded in inquiry yet positivism takes everything from concrete "absolute truths," while post positivism doesn't rely solely on that. One can combine facts and experiences to broaden and strengthen their theory.
When I think of research, it can often appear cold, and not inclusive of the many factors that are involved in education. Post positivism opens up the door to a hybrid of facts and real life, often times, enhancing research. Education is more than numbers and the mindset of post-positivism is more in line with the holistic viewpoint that educational research needs. -Melissa Reams
Positivism relies on and draws power from absolute truths as determined by what we can observe. It is driven by scientific inquiry, with empirical science as the source of all knowledge and logical deduction as the means with which we can understand the world. By contrast, post-positivism rejects the notion that absolute truths exist, and the post-positivist recognizes that researchers are not perfectly logical beings. Researchers bring their own experiences of the world, which in turn influences how they observe the world. Our observations are fallible, and there is no such thing as absolute truth.
Post-positivism has a place in education research while positivism does not. Social sciences are especially messy compared to other types of research, and while we can experiment and observe and make deductions about behavior and outcomes, it is truly impossible for any one researcher to say they know why a certain behavior happened or why a certain outcome was possible. Every subject brings with them a different, chaotic experience, and the researcher has no idea which experience or set of experiences influenced the data collected. Furthermore, the researcher's positionality impacts how they consume and digest the data. If my experience as a researcher never lead me to consider some factor or detail, then I am less likely to see that factor or detail in my observation or experiment.
I am absolutely with Sierra on this one. These terms were thrown around last semester, and I could never really get a firm grasp on what they meant. The video we watched was extremely helpful figuring out what exactly the difference is between the two. The positivist view is more of a scientific view that has more rigid parameters for what it sees as reality or outcomes in general. The post-positivist view seems to share the idea that you can have this scientific view but has a much more flexible view in that what can be observed and recorded may vary, and that the way we think and see the world is not that different from how we view science. They feel that it is a similar process and that the absolutes of the positivist view is limiting. The positivists feel that everything can be observed and measured, and that what we see is how it is. The post-positivists may agree with the methods, but feel that the findings can be open to interpretation. The drawback of the positivists view may be that they are limiting their findings when conducting empirical studies about human behaviors and approaches to education. On the other hand, a post-positivists methods and ideas about conducting research may lead to many more rigid researchers to question the results if they are subject to so much interpretation. I see the need for a more post-positivist approach to research in educational research because I am a big believer in mixed methods approach and feel that having quantitative hard facts mixes with the qualitative methods for more of a full scope picture.
The relationship between positivism and post-positivism for research design purposes involves important common elements and important differentiating elements. Both perspectives are guided by the belief that there is a true reality (or Truths in an absolute sense) in how our natural world and everything in it (including the existence and works of humans) that objectively exists abd operates. The positivist also believes that humans can aspire to directly observe, measure and comprehend the nature and effect of these objective realities with a high degree of certainty. In this way, discerned knowledge also carries the potential of offering some univeral, absolute Truth as applied to the phenomena being studied. From the post-positviist perspective, there is the same search for knowledge about reality and ways to gain from learning about the workings and characteristics of some phenomenon of interest, but also the acceptance that our human limitations of discernment, comprehension and communication are such that we can never attain more than an approximation or the true and full realities of a phenomenon, no matter how sophisticated and rigorous our research concepts and methods are developed to be. From an education research standpoint, I see the post-positivist perspective as offering the more viable and fruitful approach to pursue. As with other social science fields, education research concentrates on the study of human-centered experiencec and conditions rather than on the "hard" world of physical science phenomena where a positivist view may still offer some value. One potential benefit I can see from using from using a post-positivist orientation in education research is that the study output (data gathered and inferences reported) may expand on the knowledge previously available to user audiences in ways (particularly numeric form and broad-scale samples) that attract new interest, challenge prevailing assumptions and provoke more dialogue about the topic under study. As for downside risks from condcucting education research from post-positivist perspctive, one issue often reported is the inability of the defined measure(s) and/or measurement methods used in this form of research to generate new knowledge that is seen as relevant, meaningful and somehow usable for those in the education field.
I would consider positivism and post-positivism as part of the same flowering plant. Positivism is all about the "truths" so it is the plant stem and I would consider post-positivism the flowers and the pollen that comes from the flowers.
The benefit of positivism is that it allows for researchers and people who follow the research to have a path from point a to point b without worrying too much about how individualism plays a role in that path. They are focused on just the truth of the matter. The drawback is that the truth can always change as we get knowledge. Post-positivism on the other hand rejects that there is an absolute truth and truth is just a projection of our current reality. In social sciences post-positivism allows for research to be centered on individuals. The drawback here is that there might be room for a lot of bias to be at work.
ReplyDeleteComment by Lauren Mortensen:
I thought that this reading did a great job of really explaining post-positivism, and I have a much clearer picture of both of these after reading. The relation between positivism and post-positivism is that while they both rely on inquiry and the search for truth, Post-positivism does not derive everything from pure indisputable facts the same way that positivism does. While post-positivism evolved from positivism, in some additional reading that I was doing about these two, I read that “post-positivism is the critique of positivism”.
I think that post-positivism in general is a benefit to educational research, and after this reading I believe that this is the paradigm that I relate the most to as an inquirer. Opening your research up beyond just data and hard facts is beneficial in this field since there are many other factors that play into success in education and they are ever changing ways that it is being developed. I also agreed with the reading when he said “It is an aid to competence if inquirers avoid what has been called a ‘confirmatory stance’” (Phillips p 56).
From Hui Sun
ReplyDeletePositivism believes that reality is out there to be studied, captured and understood; however, post-positivism argues that reality exists, but is never fully apprehended, only approximated.
Both positivism and post-positivism contribute to the education research on the methodology of knowledge building. Positivism gained knowledge by experiment, quasi-experiments, surveys, or correlational studies, and produced facts, theories, laws, and predictions; however, post-positivism obtained knowledge by rigorously defined qualitative methods, frequency counts, low-level statistics, and produced generalisations, descriptions, patterns, grounded theory.
Positivism: reality is ‘out there’ an absolute that can be discovered and measured with work.
ReplyDeletePost positivism: reality is ‘out there’ but there may be limits to our ability to accurately capture it.
Positivism and Post positivism are related to each other, by the fact that each paradigm believes that reality is ‘out there’.
Positivists are like reality is out there separate to us and would say that we could eventually perfect our measures of the universe and we would be able to understand everything perfectly. But Post positivist will say that reality is out there, but there are limits to a human’s ability to accurately capture it and understand it and comprehend it. And it could be we would not be able to understand it perfectly and it is also that our ways for measuring things are flawed. The positivist will be like, we will improve the ways of measuring and one day we will get to the point where we would perfectly understand it. While Post positivist will be like, we probably would not ever get perfect instruments to fully understand things. The universe is so complicated that creatures within it, for us to understand, it would have to sort of transcend the universe. Positivism and Post positivism are like hard natural sciences.
Post by Sierria Ware
ReplyDeleteFirst I really wish I had some of these readings last semester as I was STRUGGLING through two theory classes. All of the modules so far define everything so nicely and really help me understand all of the nuances that make them similar and different.
As far as positivism and post-positivism, I was surprised how the reading down played the relationship between the two. Positivism is defined as a narrow view of science and post- positivism is simply what came after. Other google searches and reading place them as opposites to one another which I definitely understood after I finished the reading. Post positivism is centered around the idea that there are certain things we are warranted in accepting as true, but something being and absolute truth is not possible. We can understand causation but never fully; we are always constrained by physical reality. The validity of ideas depends on the trustworthiness and competence of the researcher.
I personally see the approach as beneficial because it leaves room for ideas and methods to always be challenged. As a post positivist approaching things believing no knowledge is secure or fully true removes some of those boundaries seen in other sciences. Being constrained only by reality itself, in my opinion, leaves wide open space to study and interpret. It somewhat forces researchers to look at and respect the big picture that is there in front of us.
I appreciated the insight this reading provided - I have a much clearer grasp on these theoretical stances than I had previously, which will be helpful in carrying conversations on these topics with other researchers.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, positivism holds that there is an objective reality that we can identify and measure through observation of natural phenomena. It relies heavily on senses, which produce concrete information that it holds as expressions of a sense of reality. It's an empirical approach, which includes the possibility of establishing a set of universally agreed upon facts, so long as those facts are grounded in physical, sense-based observation.
Post-positivism is an evolution of this theory, which claims that the relationship between the researcher and the subject of their observation, by its nature, alters or even corrupts the results of that observation, and that the 'facts' that are taken in as a result should be viewed through the lens of that relationship.
Each of these approaches can have drawbacks in education. Proceeding from pure positivism can give a false sense of confidence to a researcher, leading to overly bold claims, or people taking the results of research as 'fact' without applying any skepticism. Post-positivism taken to an extreme, however, can lead to a different kind of overconfidence. If there is no objective reality, than there is no 'better' way to do things, and no such thing as 'evidence-based practice'. This can lead to the resurrection of defunct and at times harmful technologies (such as facilitated communication).
Ultimately, I think the skepticism and openness to embrace qualitative methods that comes from postpositivism is helpful, but that one must be realistic about the existence of certain things as measurable, countable, and relatively 'real'.
Positivism posits that absolute truths exist for human beings to discover through scientific methods. Postpositivism posits that truths, as determined by humans, will never be absolute because they inherently include fallacies that are inescapable. People can come closer and closer to the truth but will never actually know an absolute truth. One example of this is the claim that there were only 7 planets in our solar system and the text talks about the belief, at the time of publication, was that 9 planets are in our solar system. Interestingly enough, today we believe that there are only 8 planets in our solar system. The idea is that knowledge can change and evolve with additional knowledge.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to education research, the text references the idea of cause and effect based on humans’ ability to use reasoning (mentioning that reasoning can be influenced by societal factors). I agree that in a perfect vacuum of a world, people may generally choose what is the most rational but that is not the world we live in. One example that the text cites is the parents who are looking for the best school to send their child who has special needs, weighing the pros and cons of the different schools and what they offer. This example is quite short sighted. In what world are these authors living in where parents can simply choose to send their child to whichever school they like? Students are assigned a public school education based on where they live and how the local government chooses to district their schools. If parents are looking at where they would live in order to determine their child’s supports, they would have to consider how much it costs to live in that location, available employment, transportation, etc. This example is unrealistic because the social factors that parents may be dealing with are all considerations on which school their child will attend. Of course parents would love for their child to attend a school where they can be successful but that is not a reality for many. The idea that people make choices based on their ability to rationalize is faulty because it does not take into account the social factors that must also be considered. I do appreciate the fact that postpositivism calls for a new way to look at social science methodologies as we cannot conduct social science research in the same way as we do physics or biology. We could potentially conduct research on people to identify what the majority would potentially do but, in my opinion, the majority of participants in a study don’t matter unless we can reach all people. If we spent more time learning how to connect with one another through all of our differences, we would have a better opportunity at reaching successes, which seems to be the main goal of educational research.
Post-positivism grew out of positivist movements by philosophers who had widely varying perspectives of science and research. Unlike positivism, post-postivism claims that the are no “absolute truths,” and that our ideas “truth” evolve as we learn more about a topic. They mention that what we believe to be true today, may be different tomorrow. Some philosophers who identify as post-positivists would say that we’re gradually inching closer toward a truth but our experiences inform what we believe to be true. They would also say that our experiences and what we’ve previously learned tend to influence our idea of what is real and desirable. We may be better able to claim that statements are false, more than we are able to claim that a statement is absolutely true. Postpositivists may say that researchers should veer away from looking for an absolute truth and shift toward a mindset of contributing knowledge toward a topic.
ReplyDeleteOne of the suggestions that the article’s author gave, was to conduct research looking for factors that may disprove an idea of what is right (they call this a confirmatory stance), and instead look for evidence where an idea may be incorrect. This helps researchers consider that there may be alternative explanations for their findings and experiences. I argue that mindset is beneficial to educational research. Instead of getting stuck in what we believe to be true, this can open up our minds to variables we never thought to take into consideration.
Michelle Carter
ReplyDeleteA relationship between positivism and post-positivism is control over knowledge. Positivism seems to believe that we have control over our biases and can measure and define our reality with accuracy. Knowledge is controlled by our ability to be objective and free of bias which can lead to the discovery of absolute truths. Post-positivism seems to assert that biases exist and complete objectivity cannot exist, so the pursuit of absolute truth is futile. Knowledge is a causal relationship. And if we know the cause of something we can control it. Both of these have benefits and problems in educational research. Having completely objective research of a measurable reality would make educational policy decisions so much easier. If everything were causal then all problems could be solved, or at least mitigated. I am not sure if I can explain this, but my challenge with both of these views is that it puts the researcher/inquirer in control of the knowledge and to some extent makes them “owners” of the knowledge.
After reading the article I google "positivism" to see how it compares to the article's description: Positivism is a philosophical theory that states that "genuine" knowledge is exclusively derived from experience of natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, as interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe article details how both are grounded in inquiry yet positivism takes everything from concrete "absolute truths," while post positivism doesn't rely solely on that. One can combine facts and experiences to broaden and strengthen their theory.
When I think of research, it can often appear cold, and not inclusive of the many factors that are involved in education. Post positivism opens up the door to a hybrid of facts and real life, often times, enhancing research. Education is more than numbers and the mindset of post-positivism is more in line with the holistic viewpoint that educational research needs.
-Melissa Reams
Positivism relies on and draws power from absolute truths as determined by what we can observe. It is driven by scientific inquiry, with empirical science as the source of all knowledge and logical deduction as the means with which we can understand the world. By contrast, post-positivism rejects the notion that absolute truths exist, and the post-positivist recognizes that researchers are not perfectly logical beings. Researchers bring their own experiences of the world, which in turn influences how they observe the world. Our observations are fallible, and there is no such thing as absolute truth.
ReplyDeletePost-positivism has a place in education research while positivism does not. Social sciences are especially messy compared to other types of research, and while we can experiment and observe and make deductions about behavior and outcomes, it is truly impossible for any one researcher to say they know why a certain behavior happened or why a certain outcome was possible. Every subject brings with them a different, chaotic experience, and the researcher has no idea which experience or set of experiences influenced the data collected. Furthermore, the researcher's positionality impacts how they consume and digest the data. If my experience as a researcher never lead me to consider some factor or detail, then I am less likely to see that factor or detail in my observation or experiment.
I am absolutely with Sierra on this one. These terms were thrown around last semester, and I could never really get a firm grasp on what they meant. The video we watched was extremely helpful figuring out what exactly the difference is between the two. The positivist view is more of a scientific view that has more rigid parameters for what it sees as reality or outcomes in general. The post-positivist view seems to share the idea that you can have this scientific view but has a much more flexible view in that what can be observed and recorded may vary, and that the way we think and see the world is not that different from how we view science. They feel that it is a similar process and that the absolutes of the positivist view is limiting. The positivists feel that everything can be observed and measured, and that what we see is how it is. The post-positivists may agree with the methods, but feel that the findings can be open to interpretation. The drawback of the positivists view may be that they are limiting their findings when conducting empirical studies about human behaviors and approaches to education. On the other hand, a post-positivists methods and ideas about conducting research may lead to many more rigid researchers to question the results if they are subject to so much interpretation. I see the need for a more post-positivist approach to research in educational research because I am a big believer in mixed methods approach and feel that having quantitative hard facts mixes with the qualitative methods for more of a full scope picture.
ReplyDeleteDana Rahbar-Daniels
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between positivism and post-positivism for research design purposes involves important common elements and important differentiating elements. Both perspectives are guided by the belief that there is a true reality (or Truths in an absolute sense) in how our natural world and everything in it (including the existence and works of humans) that objectively exists abd operates. The positivist also believes that humans can aspire to directly observe, measure and comprehend the nature and effect of these objective realities with a high degree of certainty. In this way, discerned knowledge also carries the potential of offering some univeral, absolute Truth as applied to the phenomena being studied. From the post-positviist perspective, there is the same search for knowledge about reality and ways to gain from learning about the workings and characteristics of some phenomenon of interest, but also the acceptance that our human limitations of discernment, comprehension and communication are such that we can never attain more than an approximation or the true and full realities of a phenomenon, no matter how sophisticated and rigorous our research concepts and methods are developed to be.
From an education research standpoint, I see the post-positivist perspective as offering the more viable and fruitful approach to pursue. As with other social science fields, education research concentrates on the study of human-centered experiencec and conditions rather than on the "hard" world of physical science phenomena where a positivist view may still offer some value.
One potential benefit I can see from using from using a post-positivist orientation in education research is that the study output (data gathered and inferences reported) may expand on the knowledge previously available to user audiences in ways (particularly numeric form and broad-scale samples) that attract new interest, challenge prevailing assumptions and provoke more dialogue about the topic under study. As for downside risks from condcucting education research from post-positivist perspctive, one issue often reported is the inability of the defined measure(s) and/or measurement methods used in this form of research to generate new knowledge that is seen as relevant, meaningful and somehow usable for those in the education field.
I would consider positivism and post-positivism as part of the same flowering plant. Positivism is all about the "truths" so it is the plant stem and I would consider post-positivism the flowers and the pollen that comes from the flowers.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of positivism is that it allows for researchers and people who follow the research to have a path from point a to point b without worrying too much about how individualism plays a role in that path. They are focused on just the truth of the matter. The drawback is that the truth can always change as we get knowledge. Post-positivism on the other hand rejects that there is an absolute truth and truth is just a projection of our current reality. In social sciences post-positivism allows for research to be centered on individuals. The drawback here is that there might be room for a lot of bias to be at work.
Gerron
Delete