lecture 2 - positivist vs interpretivist qualitative research Flashcards
interpretivist research cultures
not all research asks about causality (causal inference) or even tries to describe reality as it is (descriptive inference)
those who do = positivism
part of quali asks questions how reality is socially constructed through interrogation of concepts, words, and practices
- poltics: interrogate language and practice to elucidate power relations and how lanugage is used to wield power
methods come from specific practices by researchers in anthropology, but can be used elsewhere
three cultures =
- quantitative-positivist
- qualitative-positivist
- qualitative-interpretivist
methodology vs method
methodology = the assumptions about reality (ontology) and our ability to understand it (epistemology) which in turn define the goals of inquiry
methods = the tools we use to gather and analyze informations
diff cultures can use same methods but in diff ways
quanti-positivist mostly shares methodology with quali-positivists
quali-positivists mostly share methods with quali-interpretivists
methodological differences
positivist
- ontology = social world consists of entities with an existence independent of how people think of them
- epistemology = researchers can directly and neutrally observe the social world
- aims of inquiry = formulate propositions about social entities, specifically regularities within and between them, and to accurately measure these regularities
interpretivist
- ontology = social world does not contain “real” entities, independent of the subject that thinks of them -> only culturally mediated social facts
- epistemology = social research is “always perspectival and entwined with the pursuit of moral and material goods”
*we impose ideas about what is and what should be, we can’t escape this - aims of inquiry = understand how shared meanings and their relation to power inform or structure the social world, but also how we study the social world
consequence methodological distinction = different use of concepts:
- positivists reconstruct
create typologies, concept formation - interpretivists elucidate
what is a concept in the context of social sciences?
two types of concepts:
- experience-near (EN): concepts that someone might himself naturally and effortlessly use to define what he or his fellow see, feel, think, imagine and so on, and which he would readily understand when similarly applied by others
- experience-distant (ED): concepts that specialists of one sort or antoher employt to forward their scientific, philosophical or practical aims
both reflect intersubjective realities, but diff kinds, it’s a matter of degree and concepts may be both EN and ED
- ED concepts feed from EN ones: e.g. phobia feeds from fear, patriarchal family (ED) feeds from family (EN)
both methodologies make use of EN and ED concepts, what distinguishes them is the role they play in their inquiry
word that is both = democracy
but specialists use it in very specific terms, people defer in what they mean by it
- people may interpret it as a regime that represents their interests
- EN: free and fair elections, civil liberties
e.g. country names
- ED: Greece, EN: Elas?
- ED: USA, EN: America
- ED: kingdom of the Netherlands EN: the Netherlands
reconstructing vs elucidating concepts
positivist - reconstruction
reconstructing = correcting the defects of everyday language
- ED concepts are meant to be precise terminology, informs of social phenomena “as they actually exist”
- ED are tools to describe the messy reality in ways amenable to theoretical reflection, empirical observation, measurement and comparison
- EN concepts are unprecise and ambiguous, are the raw material to reconstruct more precise ED terminology
interpretivist - elucidation
= self-conscious about imposing own worldview (ED) on the population being studied (EN)
- EN concepts are object of study (not raw material for ED), EN concepts provide a window to understand power relations and other social realities -> socially constructed reality
- ED concepts but more self-conscious: walk between risk of attributing unwittingly to the people being studied the worldview of researcher AND objective of making the everyday intelligble to the scholarly community
- ED can also be objects of study because they too often reflect power relations as well as ways in which power is wielded in intellectual communities
e.g. Germany was seen as democracy before WW1, then the concept started to change
problems with reconstructing concepts
- one-sidedness
- universalism
- objectivism
one-sidedness = completely ignoring the EN ways in which people understand such concepts, only considering the researcher’s point of view
costs =
- overlooking meaningful behaviors (what do people see as family)
- information on how people construct, navigate and challenge their social world should inform positivist research to improve inferences (e.g. survey asks whether people receive political information fromt heir family, but who is their family?)
e.g. Sartori about family: social group characterized by legitimate intercourse with the function of bearing children
universalism = assuming universality about notions situated at a particular place and time
costs:
- overlooking interesting and meaningful variations, which beg explanation
e.g. Senegal’s Wolof arrange polticial participation may not be a malfunction of democracy but alternative ways that respond (succesfully) to their context
objectivism = presenting a concept as “value-free and purely analytical”, overlooking embedded political relations and implicit normative commitments
- overlooking a whole area of inquiry: the construction of concepts and institutions through political processes (e.g. ideas about family through media, religion)
- ethical: ignorign how we as researcher may be contributing to uphold …
Wedeen’s study on Yemeni qat chews
fieldwork throughout Yemen from 1998-2004
questions concept of democracy
qat chews = openair cafe’s in which mostly men sit (with strangers) and chew qat leaves
what happens there? people talk about the news, government, local issues etc. -> looks a lot like wht happened in C18 bourgeoise cafe’s in Europe (Habermas)
augment 1: engages critically with the minimalistic or procedural definition of democracy as contested elections (free and fair elections with freedom of speech)
- minimalistic definition is deeply problematic and needs revision bc it deflects attention from important forms of democratic practice that take place in authoritarian circumstances (people engage with the state in Yemen even though it is autocratic + not really a nation (local focus))
- what’s at stake? complicates the consensus of what’s meaningfully democratic: shouldn’t we also consider aspects of “substantive representation” such as citizen participation, modes of continual accountability and informed publics?
- what’s at stake? we are missing research over aspects of democratic poltics that are highly relevant but lay outside of what we consider participation
- we are defining ….
argument 2:
- not as important for our purposes
other examples of blind spots
“Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs in US high schools
-> clubs against bullying, some high schools would forbid it bc it goes against values = politicized, some legal institutions have defended clubs against high schools (e.g. in Utah)
given that polls and electoral data show that younger voters participate significantly less than older citizens, political scientists hold the conventional wisdom that the youth is politically “apathetic”
do these clubs not show that young people are not apathetic?
apathy is maybe bigger than participation in elections
_____________________
ethnicity in USA: electoral turnout = growing diff between white voting and other voters
minorities are politically apathetic?
-> they participate in other ways: protests, riots
(esp by youth)
