Skip to main content

Positivism and Realism

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

Abstract

Theory and practice of research in health social sciences involves a unique synergy of a range of quantitative, qualitative, and hybrid methodologies derived from parent disciplines of medicine, nursing, and various other branches of social sciences such as sociology and psychology. While the methodological diversity enhances the scope of research and implications of research findings, it also renders the necessity for the investigator to explicitly address the implicit theoretical stances and philosophical assumptions underpinning the evidentiary claims. Still inherent among the investigators in health social sciences is to present their evidentiary claims in binary terms of whether an intervention/initiative worked or not, as opposed to why it worked and for whom. This tendency to gauge the strength of evidence in terms of objectivity and replicability seems to be emerging from the deep rooted desires for control and prediction of phenomena under investigation as opposed to meaning-making. While taking the readers on a brief journey through the emergence of history and philosophy of western science, this chapter aims to provide a deeper understanding of two major philosophical foundations of research methodologies: positivism, a theoretical stance underpinning rigor and objectivity in science and scientific method, and realism, an ontological perspective examining the truth of mind-independent reality. It is suggested that a closer inspection of emergence of scientific inquiry and its underpinnings will facilitate a better understanding of research designs and outcomes, especially for contemporary complex environments in which various initiatives in health social sciences operate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   649.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achinstein P. Science rules: a historical introduction to scientific methods. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. London: Routledge; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird A. Philosophy of science. London: Routledge; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdeau M. Auguste comte. In: Zalta NE, editors. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition). 2008. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/comte/.

  • Boyd RN. On the current status of the issue of scientific realism. In: Hempel CG, Putnam H, Essler WK, editors. Methodology, epistemology, and philosophy of science. Dordrech: Springer; 1983. p. 45–90.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo JT, Semin GR, Berntson GG. Realism, instrumentalism, and scientific symbiosis: psychological theory as a search for truth and the discovery of solutions. Am Psychol. 2004;59(4):214–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capra F. The turning point. London: Flamingo; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra F. The Tao of physics: an exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism. London: Flamingo; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravartty A. Scientific realism. In: Zalta NE, editor. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition). 2011. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/scientific-realism/.

  • Cochran M. Deweyan pragmatism and post-positivist social science in IR. Millennium. 2002;31(3):525–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty M. The foundations of social science research. Crow Nest: Allen & Unwin; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(49):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dardo M. Nobel laureates and twentieth-century physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Espagnat B. On physics and philosophy, vol. 417. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelopoulos G. Scientific realism in the philosophy of science and international relations. Unpublished PhD thesis. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox NJ. Post-positivism. In: Given LM, editor. The Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. London: SAGE; 2008. p. 661–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant BM, Giddings LS. Making sense of methodologies: a paradigm framework for the novice researcher. Contemp Nurse. 2002;13(1):10–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1994. p. 105–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B. Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science. J Doc. 2005;61(1):130–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kincaid H. Positivism in the social sciences. In: Edward JC, editor. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (Version 1.0). London: Routledge; 1998. p. 558–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klee R. The Kuhnian model of science. In: Scientific inquiry: readings in the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 199–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS. Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organ Sci. 1991;2(4):342–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell J. What is realism, and why should qualitative researchers care. In: Maxwell J, editor. A realist approach for qualitative research. London: SAGE; 2012. p. 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreau KA, Eady K. Connecting medical education to patient outcomes: the promise of contribution analysis. Med Teach. 2015;37(11):1060–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman G. Generalization and the qualitative-quantitative debate. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2017;22(5):1051–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawson R, Tilley N. Realist evaluation. London: SAGE; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach M, Cohen R. Hans Reichenbach – selected writings, 1909–1953, vol. 1. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard C. Logical empiricism. In: Zalta EN, editors. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. 2017. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/logical-empiricism/.

  • Riley DJ. The paradox of positivism. Soc Sci Hist. 2007;31(1):115–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer G, Stepnisky J. Classical sociological theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. History of Western philosophy: collectors edition. Abington: Routledge; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock WW. Kuhn: philosopher of scientific revolutions. Oxford: Polity Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bavel J, Mende-Siedlecki P, Brady W, Reinero A. Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(23):6454–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen B. The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1980.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wight C. Philosophy of social science and international relations. In: Walter C, Thomas R, Simmons B, editors. Handbook of international relations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2002. p. 23–51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wong G, Westhorp G, Greenhalgh J, Jagosh J, Greenhalgh T. RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016;14(96):1–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Khanna, P. (2019). Positivism and Realism. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_59

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics