Living positively in a post-modern world

But I am just a material boy

This week I am starting a new course in qualitative research by reviewing the types of research philosophies from positivism to post-modernism. From my late twentieth century perspective, the gold standard is creating predictive theories that can be repeatably used to have a pretty good guess about what will happen. Heck, this is the type of reasoning that builds great skyscrapers, engineering that takes us to the moon and beyond, and the difficult challenges of predicting weather, the economy, and behavior. Yet, when we move from the beginning of this list to the end, we are moving from simpler models to more complex models.

As a positivist, I accept the challenge that we will not be able to account for all variables in a complex system. I love the expression in Economics where they use the term “ceteris paribus,” all other things being equal, as if one could control the variables in the universe and hold them still as if we were controlling things with a sound equalizer. But that is what we do in research, we look to isolate single variables and we call everything else noise.

My early studies in psychology are based in this positivist perspective and the reaction to the lack of testability in Psychology in what was once considered the study of the human psyche or mind. Today’s culture maligns the move to only studying behavior. However, Skinner’s early approach of being atheoretical and capturing “just the facts, ma’am” changed social science profoundly. Yet, here is the problem looking for simple, atomistic human events, we also have to take into account language.

We use lots of languages. Even when we use the same language, the words, terms, and phrases have different meanings, either nuanced or significant. With our language tools we define, create, and describe objects and abstractions with the assumptions of mutual agreement. We describe these differences in understanding with a plethora of explanations, models, and paradigms.

What makes up our language soup? Everything. We can use the Bronfenbrenner model to describe the ecological system to describe the data that goes into our brains. Everything from the people in our small circles to the culture at large influences how we process reality. Hence, because our word soup is so fluid (pun intended) it is incredibly hard to pin down the actual meaning of words, intents, and actions - even with operational definitions. At times, the best thing that we can do is just analyze the small system at hand.

As I read through the post-modern approach, I can appreciate the emphasis on analyzing a small system at hand. We acknowledge our biases and accept that we are projecting our biases on the focus of the study. It appears to be another tool in the researchers toolbox. I have to figure out why I would just want to describe and make mini-narratives without using it as part of a broader theory that integrates our view of reality. Perhaps post-modernism is the same type of reaction that the behaviorists had to their zeitgeist.

I have to be more positivist about my approach. As of right now, I have to admit that I am just a material boy.