Positivism, post‐positivism and domestic water demand: interrelating science across the paradigmatic divide

The contributions and limitations of the positivist and post‐positivist approaches to research into domestic water demand are analysed and compared, and the potential for bringing the two perspectives together is evaluated. The analysis is based on a 4‐year investigation of water demand conducted as part of a larger multidisciplinary research programme on sustainable urban environments and specifically the role of water in new developments. The positivist approach is more traditional and offers immediate utility in an evidence‐based, legally defensible policy arena. Positivists use concepts such as good ecological status and water scarcity as measures or targets. In contrast post‐positivists seek to ‘deconstruct’ concepts and decision processes in order to understand backgrounds, values and contexts that influence outcomes. The positivists typically use large quantitative data sets and seek to establish general ‘truths’ that can be tested and used to forecast. The post‐positivists undertake intensive case‐study‐based investigations, typically drawing on qualitative information to illustrate processes, exceptions and barriers. While each approach can add value to the other, the paper argues that the synthesis of the two approaches to create integrated interdisciplinary frameworks is unlikely to succeed. It argues that the most helpful vision is that of a pluralist research environment with ‘interrelating interdisciplinary research’ in which the relative contributions of generalisations and forecasts are discussed alongside broader interpretations about the inherent values of the current policy process.