explain, in your own words, the differences between constructivist and post-positivist approaches to research. In particular, include the following in your written analysis:
Identify and document constructivist’s views.
Identify and document post-positivist’s views.
Provide an example of a study (other than that given by Mertens) that uses a constructivist approach. (You can use examples from a study you have come across in previous courses)
Provide an example (other than that given by Mertens) that uses a post-positivist approach. (You can use an example of a study you have come across in previous courses)
Reflect on these two approaches. Do you think the approaches are antagonistic (i.e., you can only believe in doing research one way and not the other) or are the approaches just different ways of answering different research questions? There is no right or wrong answer for this.
Guide On Rating System
Vote
Constructivist and post-positivist approaches to research are two distinct paradigms that offer contrasting perspectives and methodologies for conducting research.
The constructivist approach posits that knowledge and understanding are not objective entities that can be discovered or measured, but rather are constructed by individuals based on their own experiences, interpretations, and interactions with the world. This approach emphasizes subjective meaning-making and the social and cultural context in which knowledge is created. Constructivists argue that reality is multilayered and subjective, with multiple perspectives and interpretations being equally valid.
On the other hand, the post-positivist approach is rooted in the belief that reality exists independently of human perception and understanding. It assumes that researchers can attain objective knowledge through systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation. Post-positivists advocate for a more scientific and empirical approach to research, focusing on the discovery of universal laws and generalizable findings. They aim to minimize bias and subjectivity in order to produce reliable and valid results.
An example of a study that utilizes a constructivist approach is an ethnographic research project exploring the experiences of refugees in a particular community. The study would involve in-depth interviews, observations, and document analysis to gain insight into the participants' subjective experiences, cultural backgrounds, and interactions with their environment. The aim would be to understand and represent the lived experiences and the multiple perspectives of the refugees in their social and cultural context.
An example of a study employing a post-positivist approach could be a quantitative research project investigating the relationship between exercise and cardiovascular health. It would involve collecting numerical data from a large sample of participants, using standardized measures and statistical analyses to establish correlations or causal connections. The goal would be to generate generalizable knowledge and identify objective patterns or relationships between variables.
Reflecting on these two approaches, it is clear that they offer different ontological and epistemological perspectives on research. They represent contrasting ways of understanding the nature of reality and the process of knowledge creation. While constructivism embraces subjectivity and context, post-positivism emphasizes objectivity and generalization.
In my opinion, these approaches are not inherently antagonistic, but rather represent different ways of approaching research questions. Both paradigms have their strengths and limitations, and their appropriateness depends on the nature of the research question and the desired goals of the study. It is possible to believe in the value of both approaches and utilize them in a complementary manner, depending on the specific research context. The key is to select and apply the most appropriate approach based on the research question and the underlying philosophical assumptions.