Positivist vs. Interpretive Research Approaches: Is One More Informative Than The Other?
Both the positivist and interpretive traditions have had long-lasting impacts on communications research due to how they changed the way researchers think about how they collect and analyze data. Together, these two approaches have helped shape future research methods in a way that researchers have developed a more holistic and complete understanding of the posed research questions.
What Are The Positivist and Interpretive Research Methods?
To better define these two methods, the positivist research approach is focused mostly on quantitative research, or “empirical scientific evidence, such as controlled experiments and statistics.” This method of research focuses on answers and data that have clear, numerical, and quantifiable values, rather than subjective evidence.
On the other hand, the Interpretive approach focuses on qualitative research to make observations and collect data to support or reject hypotheses and research questions. This approach asks researchers to “interpret elements of the study,” and therefore may not have clear-cut, numerical data from which to draw conclusions.
What Do These Research Methods Look Like in Practice?
To highlight what each research method looks like in practice, we will break down two different studies which collected data around social media trends via positivist and interpretive research methods.
First, a study, “Quantifying the effect of sentiment on information diffusion in social media” by researchers Emilio Ferrara and Zeyao Yang utilized the interpretive approach. This study sought to understand the sentiment on social media behind information diffusion by interpreting online engagements, comments, and other digital communication. In addition to attempting to answer whether negative or positive conversations spread faster, they also tried to qualify “what type of sentiment is expressed in conversations characterized by different temporal dynamics.”
On the positivist side, a study on whether selfies on social media can promote public engagement and awareness of skin cancer by Seth M. Noar, Eric Leas, Benjamin M. Althouse, Mark Dredze, Dannielle Kelley, and John W. Ayers utilized quantifiable data to determine how search volume around core themes changed after social media posts involving graphic depictions of skin cancer went “viral” in April of 2015. The researchers examined the volume of comments and shares of the original Facebook post; news volume of skin cancer from Google News; and search volume for skin cancer Google queries.
Through the analysis of this data, they were able to determine that this post had a direct impact on public awareness of skins cancer at that time: “All search queries for skin cancer increased 162% (95% CI 102 to 320) and 155% (95% CI 107 to 353) on May 13th and 14th, when news about TW’s skin cancer selfie was at its peak, and remained higher through May 17th. Google searches about skin cancer prevention and tanning were also significantly higher than expected volumes. In practical terms, searches reached near-record levels.”
The Impact of Each Research Approach
So the question remains, was one of these studies more impactful due to the research approach? While it’s difficult to answer this question determinedly as each approach helps to provide a unique and valid viewpoint to answer the posed research question, the positivist approach provides perhaps the most indisputable data. This makes the research easier to retest, understand, and analyze, which is often of great benefit to researchers.
