Statistical positivism versus critical scientific realism. A comparison of two paradigms for motivation research: Part 2. A philosophical and empirical analysis of critical scientific realism

Abstract

In this two-part publication (see Chirkov & Anderson, 2018), we compare two paradigms-statistical positivism and critical scientific realism-in their application to research on academic motivation. In the first part, the propositions of statistical positivism and their applications to psychological research are presented. An empirical study in this part combined self-determination and achievement goal theories and built a statistically integrated model of motivation of 385 college students using path analysis. Part 1 ended with a critical analysis of this statistical model and the knowledge about motivation that it provided. In the second part, the propositions of critical scientific realism are articulated. An empirical study utilizes these propositions and initiates realist interviewing of 12 purposefully selected students. Using within-and between-case analyses, a model of a motivational mechanism of successful university students is proposed. The authors conclude that the continued use of statistical positivism generates minimal new knowledge about the mechanisms of academic motivation. This paradigm should be replaced with the realist one and a case-based methodology, which have a better chance to advance research and improve understanding of academic motivation.

Scientific realism and the issue of variability in behavior

“…Various versions of scientific realism have been proposed, among which we have transcendental realism (Bhaskar, 2008), moderate realism (Grice, 2011), modest realism (Sokal, 2010), naturalistic realism (Haig & Evers, 2015), critical scientific realism (Chirkov & Anderson, 2018b), systematic realism (Hooker, 1987), and hylorealism (Bunge, 1993). Notwithstanding its various versions, all scientific realists adopt at least two basic theses: one ontological and one epistemological (Bunge, 2014;Haig & Evers, 2015).…”

Statistical positivism versus critical scientific realism. A comparison of two paradigms for motivation research: Part 1. A philosophical and empirical analysis of statistical positivism

“…Psychologists need to study motivation where it is actually happening-in the embodied human beings that are embedded into historical and sociocultural contexts-and apply their theoretical thinking and intellectual sophistication, rather than statistical programs, to discover real motivational mechanisms. One version of such an approach is reported in Chirkov and Anderson (2018).…”

“…In the current empirical study, we utilized a variable-based approach guided by statistical positivism. In the empirical study in Chirkov and Anderson (2018), we used a case-based methodology supported by the realist paradigm. Our purpose was to compare these two paradigms and their underlying methodologies in an attempt to discover the motivational mechanism of academic activity by integrating AGT and SDT.…”

“…The authors of this article are among these concerned scholars. The goal of this article is to provide an analysis of the mainstream quantitative approach to studying motivation, to critically reflect on it, and, in Part 2, to present possible alternatives for thinking, theorizing, and conducting motivation research (Chirkov & Anderson, 2018). The authors' thesis is that the statistical approach, which has been labeled statistical positivism (Gigerenzer, 1987) or statistism (Lamiell, 2013), has exhausted its capacity, both philosophically and methodologically to generate discoveries, and it should thus be replaced with a realist thinking in the form of explanations through psychological mechanisms.…”

Untitled

“…Much of that growth stems as much from the rigorous nature of the theory's empirical foundations as from the parsimony and elegance of the theory itself. Yet, with some exceptions (e.g., Chirkov & Anderson, 2018), most of the theory's empirical support has Abstract Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has grown substantially over the past 30 years. Much of that growth stems from the theory's rigorous empirical foundations and the elegance of the theory itself.…”