3.

4 Realism
Taylor (2018) defines philosophical realism as the belief that phenomena exist regardless
of how they are seen or our views regarding them. According to Ryan (2019), scientific realism
is the belief that ideas correspond to real-world phenomena. Whatever it is in the world such as
energies, systems, among other things that generates the things that are seen with human senses
is referred to as reality (Alderson, 2016). Throughout most of the 20th century, both
constructivists as well as positivists, including anti-positivists, ignored or criticised such
viewpoints. Nevertheless, in recent philosophical debates, they have evolved as a significant
viewpoint (Williams, Rycroft‐Malone & Burton, 2017).

For nearly three decades, realism has been a major and possibly dominating paradigm in
the philosophy of research, especially within the philosophy of the social sciences; realism has
also been influential in other fields of philosophy (Alderson, 2016). There are unsettled
theoretical questions regarding realism, and realist scientists differ over most of those concerns;
one promoter of realist perspectives stated that scientific realism is a strong stance whose
proponents are highly fragmented that they seem to be a minority (Ryan, 2019). Nevertheless,
contrasting views have similarly significant hurdles, and the notion that there is an actual reality
with whom humans engage and to which their conceptions and ideas relate has proven to be a
robust and potent one that has gained greater philosophical consideration since positivism's
downfall (Taylor, 2018).

The most notable incarnation of realism in the social sciences is the critical realism
paradigm, which is commonly connected with Roy Bhaskar's research. Bhaskar's approach,
especially his most modern expansion of critical realist as an emancipation view, which he
termed dialectic critical realism, differed significantly from the author's standpoint. Moreover, it
has been questioned by many authors within the critical realist school (Alderson, 2016). As a
result, critical realists maintain an ontological realistic paradigm, which implies that there is an
actual reality that appears regardless of human perceptions, ideas, and constructs (Williams,
Rycroft‐Malone & Burton, 2017). It simultaneously  embraces epistemological constructivist
approach and relativism, which postulates that human perceptions of the universe are invariably
based on their own experiences and viewpoints (Taylor, 2018).
 Various types of realism discussed herein concur that no one correct knowledge of the
universe exists that is discrete of any specific standpoint. This approach has gained
broader recognition as a viable option to both naive realism and extreme constructivist ideas that
reject the presence of any world other than human’s own creations.

3.5 Interpretivism
The origins of interpretivism may be found in idealist doctrine. The overarching concept
has frequently been employed to combine various areas of thinking spanning from social
constructivism to phenomenology and hermeneutics, all of which deny the idea that value
emerges outside of human's awareness and interpretations (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Since
meanings are perceived from the eyes of humans, interpretivist perspectives to social inquiry
argue it is critical for scientists to recognise individual dissimilarities and to learn how those
distinctions influence people to find meaning (Ryan, 2018). It has been claimed by interpretivist
that people have awareness, which suggests they are not just forced figureheads reacting to
societal factors in the sense positivists assume. As a response, individuals in a community
become increasingly complicated and sophisticated (Pham, 2018).

Diverse members of society possess varied means of seeing and understanding the similar
factual world, and they have diverse motives for their behaviours (Žukauskas, Vveinhardt &
Andriukaitienė, 2018). Interpretivism broader sense-based strategy to investigate has origins in
anthropological, sociologist, psychology, languages, and poststructuralist, which has been
employed since the early nineteenth century, long before positivist social science emerged
(O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2016). To get a clearer comprehension of interpersonal connections,
interpretivism adopts qualitative investigation approaches that concentrate on persons' views,
motives, and thinking rather than numerical facts (Irshaidat, 2019). The prior source added that
interpretive researchers believe that social structures including speech, awareness, widespread
interpretations, and toolkits provide exposure to reality. Qualitative approaches are also used by
interpretivist because they value introspective debates on how academics do study as valuable
sources of information and insight (Hiller, 2016). Post positivists, on the other hand, often see
their views and subjective experiences of scientists as inadequate in research since they are
neither empirical nor neutral (Žukauskas, Vveinhardt & Andriukaitienė, 2018).
 The existence of an outside world is not denied by interpretivist. Nonetheless, they do not
believe that there is a world that can observed from entirety (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020).
Interpretivist argue in contradiction to positivism methods to social science that almost
every research is affected and moulded by the investigators' pre-existing conceptions and
outlooks (Ryan, 2018). Concepts, processes, and information employed in study have value
because they have been decided upon by a team of scholars. As a result, investigation is a
socially produced process, suggesting that occurrences are manufactured by community rather
than occurring spontaneously (Hiller, 2016). Given the above notion, the author of this study
deduced that in interpretivism philosophy, events might differ from one culture to the next. Thus,
the truth that science reveals is socially created as well.

3.6 Positivism
Positivism is based on the philosophical viewpoint of natural scientists who work with
visible facts in societal structure to generate generalisations (Irshaidat, 2019). Positivism focuses
on the value of what is provided in overall, with a stronger emphasis on genuine information and
facts that are not affected by subjective interpretive biases (O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2016).
Positivism applies the hypothetico-deductive technique to validate a prior assumption that are
frequently presented numerically, whereby structural links amongst causative and explanatory
components (independent variables) and results may be inferred (dependent variables)
(Žukauskas, Vveinhardt & Andriukaitienė, 2018). Nevertheless, positivist inquiry does not
necessarily use quantitative approaches. An experimental research using qualitative evaluation to
examine the impacts of an intervention, for instance, falls under the positivism framework
(Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020).

One of the main goals of positivist research is to find causal links that may be used to
anticipate and influence the events in issue (O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2016). Positivism tries to
uncover natural phenomena founded on such concepts, articulating them via theoretical
explanations. Relying on the hypothetico-deductive approach, these views concentrate on
description and predictions (Hiller, 2016). The idea that larger population numbers are preferred
above smaller samples (i.e., factual evidence acquired throughout a massive sample is preferable
than data gained via small groups) is embedded in this perspective (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020).
Larger populations increase information reliability and depiction of demographic features,
allowing for greater generalisations about the origins of natural occurrences (Žukauskas,
Vveinhardt & Andriukaitienė, 2018). Furthermore, reproducibility of results is desired via
comprehensive and regulated studies in order to generate stronger assertions about
generalisations. In this manner, positivist investigation is concerned with proving notions.

The origins of positivism may be traced directly to the 17th and 18th centuries, when
intellectuals Descartes and Locke supported it (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). At that period, the
academic world advocated for a shift aside from ancient concepts of authoritarianism founded on
monarch orders (Ryan, 2018). Human thought and the perspective of factual truth were
emphasised by philosophers and intellectuals throughout the Enlightenment. The evolution of
positivism reflects this tradition, with a movement away from societal authorities (e.g., royalty)
defining reality by proclamation and toward researchers establishing impartial, evidence-based
truths via well-constructed experiments (Pham, 2018). Copernicus and Galileo, for instance, both
questioned and reinterpreted natural principles via testing and information collecting in order to
provide reasons and causative conclusions, and both advanced the positivist perspectives
(Žukauskas, Vveinhardt & Andriukaitienė, 2018). As indicated by worldwide norms for research
in biggest publications and academic organisations, positivism philosophy currently leads
modern research in medical and fundamental disciplines (O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2016). As a
result, positivist philosophy shapes scientific breakthroughs and physicians' approaches to
academic knowledge.

3.7 Pragmatism
Pragmatism as a research philosophy has its theoretical roots in the ancient achievements
of pragmatic thinking and, as a result, includes a wide range of approaches (Kaushik & Walsh,
2019). Pragmatism is a research philosophy that states that investigators must utilise the
theoretical and/or empirical technique that effectively suits the study matter at hand (Parvaiz,
Mufti & Wahab, 2016). It is frequently connected with mixed research design, in which the
emphasis is on the study's outcomes and queries rather than the techniques (Shusterman, 2016).
Likewise, another study contemplated that it can use formal as well as casual discourse (Mitchell
& Education, 2018).
 Pragmatism began as a philosophical trend in the US during the late 1800s. The
pragmatism academic paradigm arose from certain researchers' basic consensus on the dismissal
of conventional beliefs about the essence of truth, information, and research (Kaushik & Walsh,
2019). The idea that social sciences investigation could only reach truth by utilising a specific
empirical technique was entirely discarded by pragmatic academics (Parvaiz, Mufti & Wahab,
2016). According to pragmatist thought, individual acts can never be dissociated from prior
events and the views that emerged from those encounters. As a result, individual ideas and
actions are inextricably interconnected (Shusterman, 2016).

Humans conduct activities relying on the potential repercussions of their actions, and
they utilise the outcomes of those acts to anticipate the outcomes of future behaviours (Mitchell
& Education, 2018). To elaborate, the pragmatist claims that the significance of individual acts
and ideas is determined in their consequences (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Humans are not
determined by outside circumstances; they are competent of creating their own experiences by
their choices and knowledge (Parvaiz, Mufti & Wahab, 2016). Pragmatists think that truth is not
fixed and that it evolves with each passing moment. Therefore, the universe is never stationary; it
is always changing. Events affect the world, and action is the only option to alter reality
(Shusterman, 2016). The preceding study determined that actions serve as a bridge between two
points; as a result, in pragmatism, actions are essential.
 References

Taylor, S. P. (2018). Critical realism vs social constructionism & social constructivism:

application to a social housing research study. International Journal of Sciences: Basic
and Applied Research, 37(2), 216-222.

Ryan, G. S. (2019). Postpositivist, critical realism: philosophy, methodology and method for
nursing research. Nurse researcher, 27(3), 20-26.

Alderson, P. (2016). The philosophy of critical realism and childhood studies. Global Studies of
Childhood, 6(2), 199-210.

Williams, L., Rycroft‐Malone, J., & Burton, C. R. (2017). Bringing critical realism to nursing
practice: Roy Bhaskar's contribution. Nursing Philosophy, 18(2), e12130.

Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS

interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39-43.

Ryan, G. (2018). Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse researcher,
25(4), 41-49.

Pham, L. T. M. (2018). Qualitative approach to research a review of advantages and

disadvantages of three paradigms: Positivism, interpretivism and critical inquiry.
University of Adelaide.

Žukauskas, P., Vveinhardt, J., & Andriukaitienė, R. (2018). Philosophy and paradigm of
scientific research. Management culture and corporate social responsibility, 121.

O’Gorman, K., & MacIntosh, R. (2016). Research philosophy and paradigm. Research Methods
for Accounting and Finance, 59-80.

Irshaidat, R. (2019). Interpretivism vs. positivism in political marketing research. Journal of

Political Marketing, 1-35.

Hiller, J. (2016). Epistemological foundations of objectivist and interpretivist research.

Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for
social work research. Social sciences, 8(9), 255.

Parvaiz, G. S., Mufti, O., & Wahab, M. (2016). Pragmatism for mixed method research at higher
education level. Business & Economic Review, 8(2), 67-79.

Shusterman, R. (2016). Practicing philosophy: Pragmatism and the philosophical life. Routledge.

Mitchell, A., & Education, A. E. (2018, July). A review of mixed methods, pragmatism and
abduction techniques. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Research Methods
for Business & Management Studies (pp. 269-277).