Assignment Topic: Discuss views on Positivism and Interpretativism in context of your dissertation

Submitted to: Dr. Suresh Madhavan Submitted by: Mr. Ritesh Kumar M A S W RD Roll no: 21

School of rural development

Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Discuss views on Positivism and Interpretativism in context of your dissertation Introduction

Interpretative method of scientific enquiry is now widely used in the field of social science research as an alternative to more traditional approach like Positivist method. Interpretativism refers to all the methods associated with hermeneutics, ethnomethodology, phenomenology, case study etc. whereas positivism refers to those methods or approach to research which involves inferential statistics, hypothesis testing, mathematical analysis, and experimental and quasiexperimental design; in other words which involves methods of natural sciences. The view that Sociology should be studied in a scientific manner can be called positivism. Positivists believe that the social world, as the natural world, is made up of facts which can be studied like the natural world. It is the search for laws of social behavior using the logic and methods of the natural sciences. Positivists argue that by applying scientific principles of research to the study of society, Sociologists will be able to put forward proposals for social change which will lead to a better society. At the same time, Interpretivists believe that society cannot be treated as a science. They stress the ability of individuals to exercise control and choices over their actions. Since everyone is different with different views and attitudes, it is not possible to use scientific methodology to study society. Further scientific approaches of natural sciences are not suitable for the study of society because the social world differs to the natural world. In my dissertation I have used both the methods of enquiry to collect data and to analyze it. It is done because I needed both kind of tools to investigate the selected subject which is Microfinance, rural livelihood diversification and women empowerment. I needed quantitative tools to get hold of numbers which was related to the money in terms of loan, repayment and saving. But that method failed when it comes to impact assessment of the Microfinance activities on the poor beneficiaries. So, Interpretative method is used to know the change women felt in their life and in their family.

Use of positivist and interpretivism in my dissertation: The very first thing that I needed for my research is data about the selected subject which would be able to give me a clear understanding of the circulation of money in the community through Microfinance activities and the use of that money. The loan taken by the women are used basically in two ways: for consumption purpose or for productive (income generating activities) use. If it is used for income generating activities, the question was that whether it is used for starting a new income generating activity or it is used for expanding existing one. There are other questions that need to be answered and backed by data to stabiles the validity of the theory that I have created with the help of other theories which is: Microfinance provides loan that is being used for income generating activities, apart from their primary source of employment, which means they diversify their source of livelihood as a coping mechanism against poverty which in turn reduces their vulnerability against any odd that may lead to the poverty trap. Since women are the target group The methodology which I adopted was of mixed kind. My first approach towards the subject was positivist. First I formulated a theory and to prove the theory I used the method of verification. To verify the truth of my theory, I used quantitative methods of data collection which is supposed to be scientific and allow me to generalize my theory beyond the field where the study is conducted. According to positivist school of thought, only by applying the methods of natural science, social sciences will be able to match the achievements of natural science in explanation, prediction, and control. But, during research I realized that this claim of positivists is not true. The difficulties of capturing social reality in formal propositions, quantifying it, and using it to verify the theory has not reached the precision it has in natural sciences. At the same time, few things are possible to do through positivist methodology regarding my research like what was the loan amount, how many times loan has been taken, what is the number of women who has taken loan, what was the number of installment in which loan was repaid, how much money was repaid in one installment what was the use of the loan, how much money was earned on investment etc.

but this positivist methodology failed to provide the clear answers of the reasons behind these activities. Another point is that, Positivists believe that sociology is a science. The study of society should be carried out in the same way as the natural world. Research should start with a hypothesis. Positivists believe that the collection of data should be collected objectively and categorized. Information gathered should be social facts. Data should be statistical, measurable. This means that it can be quantified and analyzed to observe trends and correlations. From this, laws of human behavior can be identified. Although, it is true that this methodology has given a substantial foundation to my research, but the created hypothesis does not reflect many other aspects of microfinance in which it has helped women to have better position in the family or in the community. Positivism looks at the person (researcher) and the reality as different. It means that it looks for objectivity whereas interpretivism finds no distinction between researcher and the reality. It means that it goes, beyond objectivity, into the realm of subjectivity. During my research I realized that even though I was using positivist methodology like interview schedule, I found that I was also making some interpretation of the answer unless it does not fit into my predefined categories of the variables. If I will say that the reality which came before me as a result of my research exist independently which is a positivist argument, then it may not be true, because creation of this reality which came out of my research is very much subjective outcome of my involvement with the research. So it is not completely an objective reality and not independent of me as well. For example: my conception of management-of-money related matters are different from the conception of the community in which I was doing my research. Since I needed data on this issue, I tried to find it out in several other ways which was not positivist methodology at all. It was through ethnomethodology, I got a clear understanding of several issues related to money and also about those who does not take loan, even though they are active members of the SHG. Interpretivism has helped in different way to explore the subject in different context which came during the research because it believes that society cannot be treated as a science. They feel that

a humanistic approach must be used. Scientific approaches are not suitable for the study of society because the social world differs from the natural world. Those differences are very evident in the case of impact assessment. It is near to impossible to quantify the impact which is more of subjective in nature. For example, appearance of women in public sphere has increased, it has two different aspects: one is related to the frequency and the other is related to the time which can be quantified, but it does not talk about the courage which was required for moving out of the house, it also does not talk about the pressure that a woman has to face and it also does not talk about the effect of this outward movement of women into the public world. It is through interpretivism, all the answers of such questions can be achieved.

Conclusion
There are differences in both the methodologies because of their philosophical orientation in different school of thoughts. But, during my research I realized that both are not contradictory to each other rather complimentary to each other. Where positivism fails to get a clear understanding of the subject under study, interpretivism comes to rescue. At the same time, where data becomes more of story, positivism tries to bring it back to the path of objectivity.