[AAACE-NLA] A Brief Critique: The Foundations ofResearchCatherine B. King

[George Demetrion]

Thanks Andrea

Positivism: http://www.bartleby.com/65/po/positivi.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Postpositivism has various definitions.  The way that Donna Mertens uses
the term I would prefer to call neopositivism, which is an elaboration
of traditional positivism in that there is more consideration for the
subjective, the recognition of the inevitability of bias, and the
inherent complexity on content areas that focus on the human sciences.
The underlying ideal remains getting as close as possible to "objective
reality," defining this standard somewhat stringently with as little
"subjective" variableness as possible.

Postpositivism as defined by Phillips & Burbules (2000)Postpositvism and
Educational Research (worth reading) is more of a mediating research
tradition between positivism and constructivism.  It seeks to be as
rigorously scientific as possible given the complexity of the subject
matter in which divergent interpretations may be inevitable.  One thinks
of the field of history, and how one determines, for example, major and
minor causes of particular wars.  One wants precision of analysis, but
with the realization, too, that two cogent interpreters may see things
differently. In evaluating their respective work, one would want to
examine the overall rigor, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the
scholarship drawn upon to make the case.

See too the introduction to my essay Postpositivist Scientific
Philosophy:  Mediating Perspectives
http://www.the-rathouse.com/Postpositivism.htm

Hope this helps.

George Demetrion