Post-positivism, social constructivism and hermeneutics: A partial review of social research perspectives
Main Article Content
Abstract
In this article, I propose to review part of the current state of methodological discussion on social research. Rather than starting from the traditional division between quantitative and qualitative methodologies, we present three methodological models with the aim of illustrating the range within which methodological discussion unfolds —a breadth that encompasses everything from postpositivist formulations to hermeneutic deconstruction or critical theories. To this end, we distinguish three models: the postpositivist model, the interpretive (or social constructivist) model, and the hermeneutic model. The article is organized as follows: first, I present the characteristics of the postpositivist model, linked to a justificatory epistemology; second, I present the characteristics of the interpretive model, associated with a realist epistemology; and third, I explore the hermeneutic model, based on a non-foundationalist epistemology. Finally, I highlight some trends in the current debate on methodological simplification and the expansion of criteria for evaluating social research.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Obra disponible bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es).
References
Allwood, C. M. (2012). The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Quality & Quantity, 46(5), 1417-1429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9455-8
Bergman, M. M., & Coxon, A. P. M. (2005). The quality in qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), 1-20.
Boje, D. M. (2000). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209496
Brady, H. E. & Collier, D. (Eds.). (2010). Critiques, Responses, and Trade-Offs: Drawing Toghether the Debate. En H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 135-160). Rowman & Littlefield. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216385530.ch-008
Brady, H. E. & Collier, D. (Eds.). (2010). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 15-32). Rowman & Littlefield. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216385530.ch-001
Brady, H., E., Collier, D. & Seawright, J. (2010). Introduction. H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.). Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards.(pp. 1-10). Rowman & Littlefield. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216385530.0007
Breuer, F. & Reichertz, J. (2002). Standards of social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3), 1-11.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cea D’Ancona, A. M. (1996). Metodología cuantitativa: Estrategias y técnicas de investigación social. Síntesis.
Chalmers, A. (2000). ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada ciencia? Siglo XXI.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Cook, T. D. & Reichardt, C. S. (1986). Métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos en investigación evaluativa. Morata.
Della Porta, D. & Keating, M. (2013). Enfoques y metodologías de las ciencias sociales: Una perspectiva pluralista. Akal.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2012). Introducción. En N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Coords.), Manual de investigación cualitativa (Vol. II). Gedisa.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Dewey, J. (1952). La búsqueda de la certeza: Un estudio de la relación entre el conocimiento y la acción. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Foucault, M. (1968). Las palabras y las cosas: Una arqueología de las ciencias humanas. Siglo XXI.
Gates, E. & Schwandt, T. (2017). Case study methodology. En N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction.
Hammersley, M. (2017). Interview data: A qualified defence against the radical critique. Qualitative Research, 17(2), 173-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116671988
Hammersley, M. (2018). What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it? Ethnography and Education, 13(1), 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2017.1298458
Hammersley, M. (2023). Are there assessment criteria for qualitative findings? A challenge facing mixed methods research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 24(1).
Hodkinson, P. & Smith, J. K. (2009). Challenging neorealism: A response to Hammersley. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800408325416 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800408325416
Kato, K. (2022). How can we understand illness? Phenomenology and the pillar of person-centred care. British Journal of General Practice, 72(717), 178-179. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X719177 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X719177
King, G., Keohane, R. O. & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821211
Kuhn, T. S. (2019). La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Lakatos, I. (1978). La metodología de los programas de investigación. Alianza.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Denzin, N. K. (1994). The fifth moment. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 575-586). Sage.
Marradi, A., Archenti, N. y Piovani, J. I. (2011). Metodología de las ciencias sociales. Cengage Learning.
Mishler, E. G. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5, 87-123. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.5.2.01mod DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.5.2.01mod
Ragin, C. C. (2007). La construcción de la investigación social. Universidad de los Andes.
Rausky, M., Di Bello, M. & Buschini, J. (2023). La tradición interpretativa: Alfred Schütz. En A. Camou (Coord.), Cuestiones de teoría social contemporánea (pp. 749-770). EDULP.
Riessman, C. K. (2005). Narrative analysis. En Narrative, memory & everyday life (pp. 1-7). University of Huddersfield.
Rogowski, R. (2010). How inference in the social (but not the physical) sciences neglect theoretical anomaly. En H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Rowman & Littlefield. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216385530.ch-005
Schwandt, T. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. En N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Sage.
Schütz, A. (2003). El problema de la realidad social: Escritos I. Amorrortu.
Tarrow, S. (2010). Bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. En H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Rowman & Littlefield. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216385530.ch-006
Tsoukas, H. (2000). False dilemmas in organization theory: Realism or social constructivism? Organization, 7, 531-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840073012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840073012
Van Manen, M. (2023). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003228073
Villoro, L. (1954). Dilthey y Rickert: Dos intentos de fundamentación de las ciencias del espíritu. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UNAM. https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/5053666
Wilkinson, S. (2000). Women with breast cancer talking causes: Comparing content, biographical and discursive analyses. Feminism & Psychology, 10(4), 431-460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010004003