Positivist versus interpretivist approaches to questionnaires

Am I looking to take a logical positivist approach using methods that generate evidence of a quantitative nature? Facts obtained through closed questions in a questionnaire or through statistical data. Both of which are unquestionably reliable due to the ease of measurability. Furthermore it is evidence that is viewed objective and value-free. Within research, the objectivist outcome for this proposal being investigational or partly- experimental validation of my hypothesis. The subjectivist outcome however being the relationship between that which has been signified and the data which points to the signifier, moreover research would hopefully result in a clear product; that being subsequent action advocated as good practice.
The term positivism is historically associated with Auguste Compte, who was a nineteenth-century French philosopher. Oldroyd (1986) states:

It was Comte who consciously ‘invented’ the new science of society and gave it the name to which we are accustomed. He thought that it would be possible to establish it on a ‘positive’ basis, just like the other sciences, which served as necessary preliminaries to it. (p.170)

Cohen et al suggest that: ‘ Positivism may be characterized by its claim that science provides us with the clearest possible ideal of knowledge’. (2000:p.9)

Or am I looking to take an interpretive approach, to gain evidence that explores individual insight into their understanding of what is happening around them and looks at the motives that lay behind their actions. In Maxwell study of validity in qualitative research, cited in Huberman & Miles (2002), he seems to suggest that in pursuit of validity the emphasis should be on understanding as the primary basis of analysis. (p.p.37-64). However I would argue that ones understanding or deductive ability to look for a signifier, or theme in qualitative data, can be very different than that construed as evidence by another. Although I have a very definite agenda and clear hypothesis I need to be aware of what Holliday (2002) defines as our 'own perceptions and biases' which influence what we 'see and find' (p.175).

In acknowledgement of Maxwells (1992) understanding of qualitative methods as cited in Cohen et al (2000), the following is an abridge of his list of five kinds of validity. (p.107)

1. descriptive validity as in truth - what actually happened
2. interpretive validity as in my ability to capture the meaning and intention of situations and events
3. theoretical validity as in knowledge acquired and researched that I bring into the equation
4. generalizability as in the transversive nature of understanding from one scenario being applied to another to aid understanding
5. evaluative validity as in the intrusive nature of ones own critical-theoretical perspective
   

I have created a framework in the form of a table,  to help me identify the areas of research being undertaken and to establish what I am looking for and the type of evidence best suited to gather that data. This hopefully will lead to making the creation of questionnaires that are not only concise and economic in their content, but effective due to the choice of information requested. I had intended uploading my table into the blog. Unfortunately, I have not as yet worked out how to do this, but am happy to share this format. If you would like a copy either email me or leave me a contact email in the comments box.

References:

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education. (5th Ed). London, RoutledgeFalmer

Maxwell, J.A. Chapter Two. Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. In: Huberman, A.M & Miles, M.B. (eds.)(2002) The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. London, Sage. pp. 37-64

Oldroyd, D. (1986) The Arch of Knowledge: An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and Methodology of Science. New York, Methuen