Positivism vs Post Positivism
What’s the difference between positivism and post positivism? Why does it matter? How different are positivist and post positivist studies?
I’m Dr Elizabeth Yardley, and over the past twenty years I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said the word “paradigm” and watched a PhD researcher visibly tense. There’s often this moment - a kind of anticipatory dread - as if I’m about to lean forward and ask them to unpack Bhaskar in detail. One student once actually laughed, then said, “Please don’t ask me to define critical realism.” I’m not a monster, and more importantly, that isn’t what this is about.
Paradigms have a way of becoming way more anxiety-inducing than they need to be. They’re introduced as if they sit somewhere outside the real work of the PhD, something abstract that has to be mastered before anything else can make sense. What I’ve found, working alongside researchers over time, is that most people are already thinking in ways that align with particular paradigmatic leanings - they just don’t yet have a language for it.
Rather than approaching this as something to get right, or something you’ll be tested on, it’s more useful to treat paradigms as a way of noticing how you’re already making sense of your research. In this blogpost, we’ll look at two of the most commonly referenced starting points - positivism and post-positivism - not as positions to memorise, but as ways of understanding how different research decisions begin to take shape.
Before we get into that, I need to tell you about the specific point on the PhD journey that this tends to crop up.
You’re in your methodology chapter. You’ve written about your research questions, maybe even your methods. Then you hit a heading like Research Paradigm - and the pace changes. The sentences slow down, and you start deleting more than you write.
I’ve seen drafts where everything up to that point feels clear and grounded, and then suddenly - boom - the writing becomes vague. As an examiner, I’m left wondering, “What happened here, then?!”. Phrases like “This study adopts a post-positivist approach” appear, but nothing really follows them. Or the paragraph becomes a string of references, as if citing enough authors might somehow stand in for saying what you actually mean.
What’s happening here is that the connection hasn’t quite clicked between these abstract labels and the decisions you’ve already made.
Getting clearer on paradigms, in practice, looks much simpler than people expect. Instead of trying to define a paradigm in the abstract, you might find yourself writing something like:
“This study draws on organisational data to identify patterns in leadership allocation, while recognising that these patterns cannot fully capture how those decisions are experienced by employees.”
That sentence is already doing paradigmatic work. It signals a concern with patterns and measurement, alongside an awareness of limitation and interpretation. You haven’t needed to write like you’ve swallowed a philosophy dictionary. You’ve just made your thinking visible.
For many PhD researchers, this is the point where they realise that this is nowhere near as hard as other people made it out to be. The paragraph starts to sound like their project again, rather than something imported from a methods textbook.
So, let’s keep that in mind as we learn more about positivism and post-positivism.
What is positivism?
Positivism emerged in the early 19th century, influenced heavily by the natural sciences like biology, chemistry, and physics. Positivists argue that the only reliable knowledge is what we can observe and measure. The idea here is that we can study the social world as objectively as scientists study the physical world.
Positivism is all about quantifiable data. The researcher’s role is to observe and measure the world as objectively as possible. The aim is to uncover universal truths or “laws” about social phenomena, much like scientists discover laws in physics or chemistry.
Positivist researchers often favour quantitative methods - surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis. The goal is to remain as neutral as possible, so that another researcher could replicate the study and arrive at the same results.
In other words, positivism views reality as objective and measurable, existing independently of the researcher’s perspective.
But as we’ll see, post-positivism takes a different approach.
What is post-positivism?
While positivism focuses on precision and objectivity, post-positivism introduces a more cautious perspective.
Post-positivists still believe in using observable, empirical evidence, but they recognise that researchers cannot be perfectly objective. Our interpretations, assumptions, and cultural perspectives inevitably influence the research process.
Instead of claiming to discover absolute truths, post-positivism accepts that research findings represent our best possible understanding of reality, rather than perfect representations of it.
Post-positivist research therefore acknowledges:
the limitations of measurement
the influence of researcher perspectives
the complexity of social reality
This paradigm often incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods, aiming to develop a richer understanding of the topic under investigation.
Rather than claiming certainty, post-positivist research tends to produce probabilistic or tentative explanations.
Positivism vs. post-positivism - key differences
Although both paradigms rely on empirical evidence, they differ in several important ways.
Nature of reality
Positivism assumes reality exists objectively and can be measured independently of the observer.
Post-positivism suggests that reality exists but can only ever be partially understood, because our observations are always influenced by perspective and context.
Role of the researcher
In positivism, the researcher is expected to be a detached observer who does not influence the research process.
In post-positivism, researchers acknowledge their role within the research process and attempt to account for potential bias through careful design and reflexivity.
Research methods
Positivism traditionally relies on quantitative methods such as experiments, surveys, and statistical modelling.
Post-positivism often incorporates mixed methods, combining quantitative data with qualitative insights to gain a fuller understanding of complex social phenomena.
Goals of research
Positivist research often aims to identify general laws or universal patterns.
Post-positivist research tends to focus on developing explanations and improving understanding, recognising that findings remain open to revision.
Applying these paradigms: example project
Let’s imagine you’re researching the experiences of first-time mothers returning to corporate jobs in finance, particularly focusing on their ability to secure leadership roles on projects.
Your research design would look quite different depending on whether you adopt a positivist or post-positivist paradigm.
A positivist approach
Within a positivist framework, you might begin with a hypothesis such as:
“First-time mothers returning to work are less likely to secure leadership roles than colleagues without children.”
You would then collect quantitative data to test this hypothesis.
For example, you might analyse company records from finance firms to compare leadership positions offered to returning mothers versus colleagues without children.
This approach would aim to produce statistically measurable evidence, contributing to a broader understanding of career barriers faced by working mothers.
While this method offers clear, objective insights, it may overlook the lived experiences and perceptions of the women themselves.
A post-positivist approach
A post-positivist study might still include quantitative data, but it would often combine it with qualitative methods.
For example, alongside analysing company data, you might conduct interviews or focus groups with returning mothers to understand their experiences of workplace culture, leadership opportunities, and organisational expectations.
Rather than aiming to produce universal laws, the goal would be to develop a deeper understanding of how and why these patterns occur.
This approach recognises that workplace dynamics, organisational culture, and individual experiences all shape outcomes.
The findings may therefore be context-specific rather than universally generalisable, but they often offer richer insight into complex social issues.
Wrapping up: positivism vs post-positivism
In the end, each research paradigm has its strengths and limitations.
Positivism emphasises objectivity, measurement, and the search for generalisable laws.
Post-positivism recognises that research is always influenced by context, interpretation, and uncertainty, and therefore aims for carefully reasoned explanations rather than absolute truths.
Understanding these paradigms helps you position your research more clearly and explain why your methodological choices make sense within your broader philosophical approach.
Want a clearer understanding of research paradigms?
If you recognise that moment I wrote about earlier - where the methodology chapter slows down and the writing starts to feel strained - it’s because the connections between your concepts, your questions, and your methodological reasoning haven’t quite settled yet.
My Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations guide is designed to help you work through those connections in a more grounded way, so that when you come to write about paradigms, you’re not starting from scratch - you’re articulating something you can already see in your project.
You can explore the guide here.
If your research is moving, but something underneath it doesn’t fully make sense yet, this guide will help you get it back on solid ground.
This is not about starting from scratch, it’s about making sense of the conceptual and theoretical foundations that are already shaping your work - so you can explain, defend, and build on them with confidence.
If your project feels slightly unclear, fragmented, or harder to articulate than it should, this guide helps you steady it, so your research starts to come together as a coherent whole.
Designed for qualitative doctoral researchers working with interviews, fieldnotes, documents, thematic analysis, grounded theory, ethnography, and related approaches.
Inside, you’ll work through seven carefully sequenced sections with practical worksheets to help you:
Understand paradigms and epistemology without getting lost in jargon
Clarify how your concepts connect to your research questions
Articulate your theoretical position with more confidence
Ensure your title reflects what your research is actually doing
If you’ve ever thought:
“I understand this… but not enough to defend it.”
“I’ve done the work, but I’m not sure how it all fits together.”
This guide helps you make your research foundations visible, so you can move forward with clarity, coherence, and confidence.
When the foundations are clear, everything else becomes easier: your literature review, your methodology, and your writing.
This is a digital download. You’ll get immediate access to the full guide and worksheets as soon as you purchase, so you can start making progress straight away.
Swipe through the images to see exactly what’s inside.
For a more streamlined and coherent approach, you can access all four PhD Survival Guides in the full series here.
Got questions? Contact me using this form, I’ll be happy to help.
By purchasing this product, you agree to our Terms & Conditions.