The argument seems to be that the positivist lens assumes an aspiration to objectivity will come close enough to it to make observation and collection analysis nearly objective. The interpretist approach may enter into the same exercise acknowledging that the questions arise from the fabric of bias, which they do. Van Quine argued that there is no firewall between the language of the research and the theory, that anything collected and analyzed to answer a question already contained the language of theory. This might conceal objective (and abject) reality.

However, the notion of creating "objective" reality is interesting. I want to suggest that we can use some method to approximate it or create a virtualization of it. There are reasons to suppose that once we have begun to represent experience in a symbolic system such as language (even the language of math) we have only a representation in symbols of which we rather automatically make meaning: this representation, though quite accurate, is not objective reality but a highly meaningful image of reality. The very thought that creates the question that instigates research is performed in some human language laden with meaningfulness, valuations and narratives.

The general notion of interpretivism applies to social sciences but is not usually considered relevant to natural sciences. As I understand it, it has a problematic connection to relativism. However, I can see an easy connection to natural sciences that would make an interesting study: we can only symbolize (describe and name) what we observe; thus science has been guided to invent a mass of technological devices to extend our ability to observe; the language of the original observations (such as Galileo's through his telescope) was also adapted to name and describe that which was revealed by technologically assisted observation. There ought to be a trace of the original language.

Abyekta,

The Interpretivist paradigm holds a subjective view of reality and its anti-positivist epistemology which is concerned with explaining individuals’ perception of organizations and society and which seeks to understand the subjective individual and organizational processes that shape and control behaviour. In the interpretivist paradigm, explanations of human behaviour and all aspects of organizational life, are socially constructed, also known as the perspective of constructivism. Consequently, to understand the processes that constructed an individual’s behaviour, researchers must gather data that reveal an individual’s subjective experiences, the interpretive lenses that give meaning to that experience, as well as the organizational factors and contexts that create these expressions.

Positivism on the other hand.  holds an objective view of reality and is concerned with explaining how organizations and society maintain order, Burrell and Morgan (1979).

The positivist view as to how knowledge is created and which is highly favoured by researchers, theorizes that behaviour can be predicted and that cause-and-effect relationships are clear and pervasive Burrell and Morgan (1979).

Knowledge therefore flows from the objectivist or subjectivist metal frames of individuals. As illustrated in paper attached, Functionalism strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social whole over the individual parts (human actors).  Functionalists take an objective perspective and tend to have a realist ontology, a positivist epistemology, a deterministic vew of individuals, and a nomothetic methodology. Interpretivists on the other hand, take a subjective perspective and tend to have a nominalist ontology, an anti-positivist epistemology, a voluntarist view of individuals, and a ideograpic methodology, (Grant and Perrin, 2002). Individuals construct "small-scale models", in their minds, of the entities and relationships which they perceive to form the external reality in order to anticipate and explain events, Craik, (1943).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236941623_Building_a_knowledge_society_one_individual_at_a_time_a_multi-level_review

Working Paper Building a knowledge society one individual at a time: a mul...