Interpretivism vs Positivism | A simple explanation of interpretivist vs positivist research for beginners
If you’ve been trying to understand the difference between interpretivism and positivism, you’ve probably noticed that most explanations either feel overly technical… or somehow still leave you unsure which one actually applies to your research.
This isn’t just abstract theory, it shapes how you design your study, how you collect data, and what kind of contribution you can realistically make.
Let’s strip this back and make it genuinely clear, especially if you’re leaning towards qualitative research but finding yourself surrounded by more positivist ways of thinking.
Why this distinction matters more than it seems
Many PhD researchers first encounter research methods through a fairly structured, often quantitative lens.
You’re taught about variables, measurement, objectivity, reliability.
Even if you know you want to explore people’s experiences, meanings, or perspectives… it can feel like you’re somehow stepping away from what “proper research” looks like.
This is where understanding the difference between positivism and interpretivism becomes important.
Not to pick the “right” one, but to recognise that different approaches are built on fundamentally different assumptions about the world.
Two different ways of seeing the social world
At the heart of this distinction is a very simple question:
What kind of world are we studying?
Positivism and interpretivism answer that question in very different ways.
A positivist approach assumes that the social world exists independently of us. It is something we can observe, measure, and explain - much like the natural sciences aim to do.
From this perspective, the goal of research is to identify patterns, test relationships, and uncover generalisable findings.
Interpretivism takes a different starting point.
It assumes that the social world is not fixed in that way - but is shaped by people’s experiences, interactions, and interpretations.
So instead of asking, “What is happening?”, interpretivist research tends to ask: “What does this mean to the people involved?”.
How this plays out in research
These differences aren’t just philosophical. They shape how research is actually done.
If you’re working within a more positivist approach, your research is likely to focus on:
measurement
objectivity
identifying patterns across larger groups
You might use surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis to test hypotheses and draw conclusions.
If you’re working within an interpretivist approach, your focus shifts.
You become interested in:
lived experience
meaning-making
context
and the complexity of human perspectives
This is where qualitative research sits.
Methods like interviews, focus groups, and ethnography become central because they allow you to access the kinds of insights that positivist approaches are not designed to capture.
A simple way to think about it
One way to make this distinction more intuitive is to think about what each approach is trying to prioritise.
A positivist study might ask:
How often does this happen? What factors influence it? Can we predict it?
An interpretivist study might ask:
How do people experience this? What does it mean to them? How do they make sense of it?
Neither set of questions is inherently better, they are just doing different things.
Where many qualitative researchers get stuck
If you’re drawn to qualitative research, there’s a good chance you already lean towards interpretivist thinking - even if you haven’t labelled it that way yet.
But this is often where doubt creeps in, because interpretivism can feel less concrete, less certain, and less “provable.”
You might find yourself wondering:
Am I being rigorous enough?
Is this too subjective?
Will this stand up academically?
These concerns are incredibly common and they usually come from trying to evaluate interpretivist work using positivist criteria.
A quick example to bring this to life
Imagine you’re researching workplace stress.
A positivist approach might measure stress levels across a large sample, looking for correlations between workload and reported stress.
An interpretivist approach would look very different.
You might conduct in-depth interviews, exploring how individuals experience stress, how they interpret workplace expectations, and how those experiences are shaped by organisational culture.
Instead of producing generalisable patterns, you produce something else: a deeper, more contextualised understanding of how stress is experienced and constructed.
Which one should you use?
This is the question most people are really asking.
And the answer is not:
“Interpretivism is better than positivism.”
It’s:
“Which approach aligns with what you are trying to understand?”
If your research is about meaning, experience, identity, or perspective, then interpretivist approaches are often a natural fit.
For many PhD researchers working qualitatively, that alignment is already there, you just need the language to articulate it.
Understanding interpretivism vs positivism is about recognising that research is built on different ways of seeing the world, and once you see that clearly, a lot of your methodological decisions start to make more sense.
If you’re leaning towards qualitative research
If you’re reading this and thinking:
“I think I’m more interpretivist… but I’m not completely sure what that means for my research”
That’s a really important point to pause and get clarity.
My starter guide, “What does it mean to be a qualitative researcher?”, walks you through exactly that.
It helps you understand:
what qualitative research actually involves
how it differs from more positivist approaches
and how to position yourself confidently within it
It’s designed to give you a clearer foundation so you can stop second-guessing and start making research decisions with confidence.
It’s there whenever you’re ready, click here to access it.