Interpretivism

Both postmodernism and interpretivism (antipositivism) share the belief that meaning is socially constructed and that objectivity is unattainable due to the influence of human beliefs and values on perception. However, they differ in their scope and focus.

Interpretivism focuses on the social world, acknowledging the validity of empiricism in the natural sciences but denying its applicability to human society. It argues for a different epistemology for studying social phenomena.

Postmodernism claims that all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is socially constructed and cannot describe objective reality. This is a more radical and sweeping claim than antipositivism’s.

Key Differences:

Scope: Interpretivism is more limited in scope, focusing on the social world while acknowledging the validity of empiricism in the natural sciences. Postmodernism challenges the validity of all knowledge, including scientific knowledge.

Focus:Interpretivism focuses on developing alternative methods for studying social phenomena. Postmodernism focuses on deconstructing existing knowledge systems and challenging the notion of objective truth.
Postmodernism’s Rise and Fall:

Postmodernism gained significant influence in academia, but its radical claims and the dogmatic behavior of some of its proponents led to criticism and a decline in its influence.

The public and some within academia questioned the validity of postmodernism’s claims and its rejection of objective truth, particularly in light of scientific advancements.

Interpretivism vs postmodernism

Interpretivism, with its more limited scope and focus on developing alternative methods for studying social phenomena, remains a more relevant and viable approach than postmodernism. Postmodernism, despite its initial impact, has largely been discredited due to its radical claims and the dogmatic behavior of some of its proponents.