Philosophical schools or positions have many names, especially depending on who is using them; I think it might help us to understand what you mean by "scientific paradigm postpositivism" for example, if you could mention one or two philosophers expounding the different positions or briefly define each.
Regards,
John

Ok, the question was too broad. To give you some background. I am doing research in management and try to get an overview of philosophical schools and positions, to be able to understand (for myself) and explain (for others) what philosophical perspective that has guided my research project. From the literature it seems as if there are four major paradigms guiding scientific actions: positivism, postpositivism, critical theory and constructivism (see Guba and Lincoln, 1994). From what I can see I believe my research is guided by the postpositivistic paradigm. By reading about critical realism (see e.g. Bhaskar, 1998) I also thought that fit my views. My understanding of the field is however to scarce to be able to see (if) and how postpositivism and critical realism are related. For example, is postpositivism like an umbrella capturing several viewpoints whereof critical realism is only one (and then, which are the other ones?)? Or, does postpositivism always include critical realism (and then, does it also include something else also that I have missed)? Or, do they have no overlap whatsoever? I hope this made made my question a bit clearer.

Perception is everything in this case. What we perceive to be critical realism and what we perceive to be postempiricism can be the same or two different things. If I am understanding the question correctly, I would say that it is all about perception. What is positive to one person may be pessimism hidden to another person wrapped in the cloak of critical realism.

Intent and perception are two very important things. Intent of something doesnt necessarily mean that all observers are going to perceive it as such. They could be postpostive about it or they could be critically realistic about it, depending on the circumstances.

I would have to say that there is no connection between the two because of perception. It changes constantly from person to person from situation to situation.

Jamie

I have never really come across the term "postpositivism". I would have to suggest it is not in wide usage in philosophical circles. Everyone is always inventing their own specialized new terminology. If it refers to the fact that modern philosophy is re-emerging from the dominance of logical positivism, linquistic analysis and analytic forms then it might have some utility.

Yes, I agree. If philosophy is "emerging" from LP etc.it is because it has incorporated the good in these approaches, not because it has discarded them. The philosophy I do is far better off for the occurrence of these movements. By the way, you did not say what it is that philosophy has now emerged into. I, myself, still count myself as neo-positivist (whatever that is).

"Post-postivism" seems to be in wide use in some
philosophical areas such as the philosophy of science. See for example Zammito:

John H. Zammito: A Nice Derangement of Epistemes

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~giere/WESKASTS.pdf

Ether Wave Propaganda: Postmodern equivocation