2. Hello everyone!
When you see either of these images, click to listen to us
speak and explain the slides in more depth. We have included
additional “notes” at the bottom of each slide, as well as
image sources.
Thank you!
Lesley, Louisa, and Noelle
4. What is Interpretive Research?
• Framework/practice related to social
and human sciences
• Anthropology, Sociology,
communication, etc.
• More than just a framework of
understanding
• “No facts, only interpretations” -
Nietzschean (Bhattacharya,
2008, p. 3)
• Understanding + meaning-making, NOT
explaining + finding purpose!
5. Its Roots and Foundations
• First established by Weber’s Verstehen
approach → understanding something in a
specific context
• Also acknowledged another term
Methodenstreit → conflict between
methods
• Understanding is very different from
explanation (Blackwell, 2002)
• Sociologists at the Chicago School
• Field observations
• Denzin and Lincoln → “disclosed, discovered,
and experienced” (Bhattacharya, 2008, p.5)
• Both researchers and participants!
6. Purposes
• Society is best understood through the
application of interpretive and subjective
understandings in social realities or contexts
• Gaining a better perspective of
development and process of:
• Human behaviour and human
interaction
• Societal and individual perceptions of
realities
• Meaning-making related to all social
sciences and structures
7. Ontology
Ontology focuses on the beliefs about the nature of
reality - what is true? What exists? What is real?
Interpretivism:
• each knower/observer constructs their own
reality based on “subjective principles peculiar to
that person” (Sipe & Constable, 1996, p. 158)
• all knowledge is socially constructed
• Clifford Geertz: “interpretation of an
interpretation” in anthropological writing
(Denzin, 2008, p. 315)
8. Epistemology
Epistemology focuses on how we come to know what we know.
Interpretivism:
• The nature of truth: there are many truths and subjective realities
• How we talk about truth: dialogue occurs between various knowers;
ongoing attempt to describe/understand the world from the POV of
someone else
• The purpose of knowing: focus on self-discovery/learning something
about yourself
• How we communicate: the researcher and the research participant
“inform and influence each other” (Sipe & Constable, 1996, p. 158)
through communication
9. Role of the researcher
Researcher = data collection instrument
Potential roles:
• Participant-observer
• Complete participant
• Observer-participant
• Complete observer (Owen, 2008, p. 549)
Context-bound:
• Research site
• Level of immersion
Additional notes about the role of the researcher:
• Aim: understand the socially constructed settings that offer different sets of interests and values
• The nature of this research is very much based on the researchers themselves
- Researchers are the main research tools!
- “no researcher is neutral” (Owen, 2008, p. 550)
• “Ethos” of the researcher
10. Relationship between the researcher and the research
participant
• The researcher and the researched have a reciprocal influence on one another (Sipe and Constable,
1996)
• “The relationship between the researcher, research participants, and context inhibit value-free,
neutral, or unbiased inquiry” (Owen, 2008, p. 548)
• The observer is no longer “aloof” (Denzin, 2008, p.317)
• Research decisions made by the researcher are informed by exchanges with “others”
11. Examples of Research Methods in Interpretive Paradigm
Thick description of the context and phenomena studied
Generalizability refers to common patterns identified within the natural
context of the research (sometimes referred to as transferability)
Reporting includes participant perspectives and reflections
Researcher perspective explained including relevant experiences and biases
Participant observation - Owen (2008)
notes this situates the human
researcher as “the instrument
of data collection”
(p. 549-550)
In-depth interviews
Owen (2008)
12. Data Collection in Interpretivism
• Interpretivists use a “series of
representations” (Denzin, 2008, p. 313):
• Fieldnotes
• Interviews
• Conversations
• Photographs
• Recordings
• Memos to the self
• Data collection stops at theoretical
saturation.
13. What are the perks?
• Compared to positivism, interpretivism:
• Offers different perspectives of social
realities - how people can shape the social
world!
• Anything and everything is *mostly* open
to interpretation
• Both the researcher and the researched are
actively engaging in the experience
• Equal focus on the social and cultural
groups with individual experiences
• Understanding, not just uncovering
knowledge
14. Challenges
• “All discourse is influenced (and to a
certain extent, formed) by gender,
race/ethnicity, socio-economic class, and
culture” (Sipe & Constable, 1996, p. 153)
• Where’s the validity + reliability? (Angen,
2000)
• Careful consideration and
awareness
• Ethical validity
• Substantive validity
• “Complete objectivity and neutrality are
impossible to achieve” (Blackwell, p. 8)
15. Six Steps in the Interpretive Process
1. Framing the research question
- by the researcher with a “sociological imagination” and a subject by locating
the problem/experience to be studied
- by considering how the problem affects others
- by locating sites of those affected
- by asking a how and not a why question
- by creating a single-statement research question
16. Six Steps in the Interpretive Process continued
2. Deconstructing/critically analyzing prior conceptions
• a double hermeneutic or interpretive circle
3. “Capturing” the phenomenon - locating/situating/multiple instances in the
natural world
4. “Bracketing” the phenomenon by identifying essential
elements/structures/features to be investigated
• a semiotic reading can identify multiple meanings of key words
17. Six Steps in the Interpretive Process continued
5. “Constructing” the phenomenon by putting the parts/pieces/structures back into
place
6. “Contextualizing” the phenomenon/relocating it back in the natural social world
(Huberman & Miles, 2002, p. 349-360).
The goal of interpretive interactionism is understanding. The importance of these 6
steps is to create the foundation for interpretation and understanding.
18. Interpretive Criteria
Questions framing the interpretive criteria:
• Do they illuminate the phenomenon as lived experience?
• Are they based on thickly contextualized materials?
• Are they historically and relationally grounded?
• Are they processual and interactional?
• Do they engulf what is known about the phenomenon?
• Do they incorporate prior understandings of the phenomenon?
• Do they cohere and produce understanding?
• Are they unfinished?
(Huberman & Miles, 2002, p. 362)
19. Discussion Questions
1. “All interpretations are unfinished, provisional, and incomplete” (Miles & Huberman, p.
364). How do you feel about this as a researcher? What are the implications of this for
conducting and publishing your research?
2. How does the double hermeneutic or interpretive circle help to situate the researcher’s
experience with the subject’s experiences? Is it expected that these experiences should
be balanced or weighted in favour of one or the other?
3. How do we interpret and explain without leaning to the positivist perspectives of a
reality that does not involve the subjects’ perspectives?
20. Additional Research
If you would like to read more about interpretivism, here are some additional sources:
Brooke, M. (2013). Which research paradigm for TESOL? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(3), 430-436.
Ferguson, D.L. (1993). Something a little out of the ordinary: Reflection on becoming an interpretivist researcher
in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 14(4), 35-43.
Humphrey, C. (2013). A paradigmatic map of professional education research. Social Work Education, 32(1), 3-16.
Swan, K. & Hofer, M. (2011). In search of technological pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers’ initial foray
into podcasting in economics. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 75-98.
Wignall, R. (1998). Challenges for interpretivist inquiry. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44(3), 302-319.
21. References
Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research.
10(3), 378-395.
Bhattacharya, H. (2008). Interpretive Research. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 465-
468). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Denzin, A.K. (2008). The Evolution of Qualitative Research. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Methods. (pp. 312-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Holloway, I. & Wheeler, S. (2002). The Nature of Qualitative Research: Development and Perspectives. In Immy Holloway and Stephanie
Wheeler (2nd Ed.), Qualitative Research in Nursing. (pp. 3-25). Oxford: UK: Blackwell Science, Inc.
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780632052844/001-025%5B1%5D.pdf
Huberman, A. M. & Miles, M. B. (2002). The Interpretive Process. In A. Michael Huberman & Matthew B. Miles (Eds.), The Qualitative
Researcher’s Companion. (pp. 349-367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986274.n14
Owen, J. (2008). Naturalistic Inquiry. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 548-551).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.4135/9781412963909.n280
Sipe, L. & Constable, S. (1996). A chart of four contemporary research paradigms: Metaphors for the modes of inquiry. Taboo: The
Journal of Culture and Education, 153-163.
Editor's Notes
(Louisa)
Audio:
Welcome to our presentation for the Interpretivist Paradigm. Here, we have researched, explored, and discovered the characteristics, foundations, epistemology, ontology, and more about this paradigm. Please join us in dissecting this research method in further detail!
Image source: http://www.speakoutinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/uh173-a7d3f42b-b1b1-4ff7-9f13-0a4cea662442-v2.jpeg
NOELLE:
Interpretivism revolves around the idea of interpreting - the researcher interprets what they observe, which can sometimes actually be the interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. Reality is subjective and definitely not singular in interpretivism, and the researcher interacts with the research participant as a participant, an observer, or both. We will delve into and explore these words and concepts in more depth throughout our presentation.
(Louisa)
Audio: The general overview of interpretive research is one that is given from our Week 3’s reading, which is Bhattacharya’s text, Interpretive Research. We wanted to provide some general notes and ideas about this paradigm in order to guide your thinking throughout this method of research. In essence, interpretive research is a framework or practice that is related to human sciences, for instance, it is most often used in Anthropology, Sociology, communications, social work, etc. As discussed in the text, this paradigm is more than just a framework of understanding as several philosophers and theorists have explained it to be something that is “no facts, only interpretations” in our research. Aside from understanding and interpreting our research data, there is a lot of meaning-making that is involved - working hand-in-hand with methods and practices within the social fields. Of course, with that being said, the interpretive paradigm is NOT about explaining and finding purpose! For this particular paradigm, because every individual thinks and interprets information and data differently, this type of research is mostly qualitative rather than quantitative as it is subjective to the researcher, the participants, and other related factors.
Image source: http://theparliamo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/42-21886655-copy-13.jpg
(Louisa)
Audio: To continue further into the roots and foundations of Interpretive paradigms, we dove into several articles to find out where this type of research came from. So, the interpretive paradigm was first used and established by Weber’s Verstehen approach, which meant to understand something in its specific context. Not only this, he recognized another approach that helped to formulate Verstehen, which was Methodenstreit, referring to conflict between methods. This approach might have urged him to produce Verstehen. Further in the interpretive stepping stones were the sociologists at the Chicago School that completed many field observations to formulate a better definition of what this paradigm is composed of. Lastly, the interpretive paradigm was largely developed by Denzin and Lincoln as they distinguished this field from positivist and postpositivist approaches. The meaning-making that comes from this is the idea that both the researchers and the participants are one team of people that work together to disclose, discover, and experience.
Image source: http://www.userzoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Recruitingpng.png
(Louisa)
Audio:
Among the numerous purposes that qualitative research has, the interpretive paradigm has its own agenda that focuses on the society as a whole. Because society is best understood through the use and application of subjective concepts, the purpose of this paradigm is to make meaning of the social realities and contexts that are given. The goal in this type of research is this…”I need this to make sense - how can it make sense? WHY does this make sense? WHAT does this mean?” Basically, the interpretive paradigm intends to gain a better perspective in the development and process of 3 general categories (and more but here is a basic outline): human behaviour and interaction, societal and individual perceptions of the numerous social realities that are visible in our society, and lastly, as discussed, meaning-making - finding the meaning behind these social sciences and structures. This paradigm aims and answering these questions: What are the social meanings, and how are they relatable to people’s social actions? How can we make sense of these structures in a particular context? How do we go about exploring the real people experience? The mind map shown on the left side would be something that a lot of interpretive researchers would connect with - it’s certainly one that our group found relevant as teachers!
Image source: https://julianstodd.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/image11.jpg
Noelle:
Ontology focuses on the beliefs about the nature of reality and asks the questions: what is true, what exists, and what is real? In interpretivism and naturalistic inquiry, each person creates their own reality based on their subjective experiences. All knowledge is socially constructed and pulls from human interaction and context. There is no such thing as one objective reality when humans with varied experiences are involved. When thinking about what is true and real, we also need to consider Cliford Geertz’s idea that anthropological writing involves an “interpretation of an interpretation” (Denzin, 2008, p. 315).
IMAGE SOURCE: http://bellavitajourneys.com/8-brain-training-games-that-increase-your-iq/
Noelle:
While ontology focuses on what we know, epistemology focuses on how we come to know what we know. Sipe and Constable break down epistemology into the nature of truth, how we talk about truth, the purpose of knowing, and how we communicate.
In interpretivism, there are multiple truths and reality is never objective. While scientific research and positivism aims for “objectivity, precision, and control” (Owen, 2008, p. 550), this is not the case in interpretivism. Interpretivism posits that all knowledge is socially constructed and relies on human interaction and the context of these interactions. The researcher acts as the data collection instrument and attempts to understand the world from the point of view of someone else by gathering and evaluating meaning that occurs in the participants’ natural environments. A relationship develops between the researcher and the research participant, and the researcher and research participant can “inform and influence each other” (Sipe and Constable, 1996, p. 158) through communication and dialogue.
IMAGE SOURCE: http://xaperezsindin.com/2013/04/16/research-perspective-in-the-field-of-qualitative-research/
(Louisa)
Audio:
What we have uncovered about the role of the researcher is that the researcher acts as a data collection instrument who gathers and evaluates meaning in complex interactions (Owen, 2008, p. 549) / this is where interpretivism and naturalistic inquiry really start to veer away from positivism. As Noelle reviewed Owen’s article, we find various roles of the researcher in this paradigm. Some potential roles of the researcher can be a participant-observer, complete participant, observer-participant, or complete observer, but they are always actively engaged in the process of inquiry. We also note that the role of the researcher is observing in the natural setting of the research, that way, they interact with the researched on a firsthand basis. Not only this, researchers are not context-bound; this just means that they are not free from a specific time or location from humans and human behaviour. Lastly, the ethos of the investigator is when an investigator reveals their positionality, it gives insight into their personal experiences and biases. This can actually lend credibility to the interpretations made by the investigator.
Image source: http://blog.crisp.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Roles.png
NOELLE:
As mentioned in the discussion on the epistemology behind interpretivism, the researcher and the researched have an influence on each other when data is being collected. Owen (2008) takes this a step further and suggests that the setting and context also influence the researcher and the research participant, which inhibits any type of inquiry that is “value-free, neutral, or un-biased” (p. 548). The researchers are observing the research participants in their natural environment, and their presence has an influence (whether it be implicit or explicit) on what happens within that setting. As mentioned by Denzin in The Evolution of Qualitative Research, the researcher is no longer considered to be “aloof” as of the Postmodern Period.
One of the key characteristics of naturalistic inquiry is that it is flexible. When a researcher is in the field, the study design can be altered or changed entirely based on what the researcher is observing. If any changes are made, the researcher has an ethical duty to inform the research participant.
Lesley: Naturalistic or Interpretive inquiry typically features thick description of the context and phenomena studied. While validity and reliability (or dependability or credibility) are addressed through the methods chosen and reported, generalizability refers to the common patterns identified within the context of the research. This is sometimes referred to as transferability. Reporting of a naturalistic or interpretive inquiry includes participant perspectives and reflections and the researcher perspective, including relevant experiences, biases and position of the researcher.
Noelle:
Interpretivists use a “series of representations” (Denzin, 2008, p. 313) when collecting their data. These methods include detailed fieldnotes (which are also mentioned by Owen), interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. The researcher ideally stops collecting research when they have reached theoretical saturation, the point when no new information can be collected or the research becomes redundant.
IMAGE SOURCE: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiykPC41MLKAhWGw4MKHee9DY0QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FField-Notes-Kraft-Ruled-3-Pack%2Fdp%2FB0034KDEMO&psig=AFQjCNErxHQ5xnjM6F_Dk8XZPCyVwkvoiQ&ust=1453732155685692
(Louisa)
Audio:
As we were looking through this paradigm, we wondered what were some of the major differences from the other paradigms, especially with positivitism. What we understood was the idea that this paradigm offers a different point of view of the social and cultural realities, which in turn impacts our understanding of how people can shape the social world. Because anything and everything is open to interpretation, it’s great for both the researchers and the ‘others’ to take part and actively engage in the learning experience. This allows for a more balanced focus between the social groups and an individual’s lived experiences. Unlike positivism where it is mainly uncovering knowledge, the interpretive paradigm understands, and makes meaning.
Image source: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/55/40/91/554091fcf44804436b313a745c8b21b8.jpg
(Louisa)
Audio: Although we do see a lot of benefits to interpretive research, there are some criticisms to this paradigm as well. Because in interpretive research, the information and data is based on the resesarchers’ interpretation, it becomes a challenge where there’s that question - Who knows what’s right? Angen (2000) provides a really descriptive analysis and explanation of a few of the challenges that interpretive research faces. As Noelle has pointed out from the Sipe & Constable reading, there are many external factors within the society and culture that impact the nature of the research. What we know as researchers in this paradigm is that it is always negotiated within our cultures, people, environment, as well as relationships (Ange, 2000). As a result of this, anything and everything goes as it could be claimed without validation or any scientific evidence. This becomes a tricky part because questions of objectivity, validity, and reliability are in question. The question of validity becomes the largest issue because the foundation of these researches are socially constructed. In this case, what is taken from the research and through careful consideration of political and ethical situations, researchers of the interpretive paradigm can carry out their research in a more respectful manner. As well, substantive validity is required because these conclusions cannot all be made from interpretations. Evaluations, reflections, assessments are continuously completed in order to offer more accurate assumptions or answers. Of course, this does require a lot of work as this type of knowledge in research is ‘fluid’ and ‘flexible’ - again with the validity issue. What we as interpretive researchers can do, is ensuring proper documentation, seek out alternative explanations to results, and lastly, find the meaning-making in order to validate our inquiry process. One thing that we must remember as researchers is that it’s virtually impossible to achieve complete objectivity and neutrality in these studies because of the social context they are in!
Reference: Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.
Image source: http://www.a1airconditioning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1.png
Lesley: Huberman & Miles (2002) explain that there are six phases or steps in the interpretive process that have been adapted from Denzin’s Interpretive Process from Interpretive Interactionism published in 2001. The first step involves framing the research question. Two sources are involved in this process: the researcher and the subject. The researcher’s “sociological imagination” influences how the researcher conceives of the phenomenon. The authors observe that “life experiences give greater substance and depth to the problem the researcher wishes to study” (p. 350). The personal experiences of the researcher serve to frame and help define the phenomenon. “The researcher seeks to uncover how the problematic act or event in question organizes and gives meaning to the persons studied” (p. 350). Framing the question involves consideration of how the problem affects others, the location of those affected, asking a how and not a why question, and the creation of single-statement research questions.
Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Question_mark_1.svg
Lesley: Deconstructing prior conceptions involves identifying definitions, observations and analyses of the phenomenon and critically examining theoretical models linked to the phenomenon in prior studies. A double hermeneutic or interpretive circle has been proposed to be at the centre of the research process, with the researcher and the subject in the centres with interactions between. Capturing the phenomenon involves self stories, multiple cases and personal histories related to the phenomenon. Bracketing the phenomenon involves interpreting meanings and providing interpreted definitions of the phenomenon and its features. This can involve a semiotic reading to uncover multiple meanings of key words.
Lesley: Constructing the phenomenon involves reordering the elements as they occur and highlighting the relationship of each element to the next. Huberman & Miles explain that “the interpretive interactionist, in the phase of construction, endeavours to gather together the lived experiences that relate to and define the phenomenon under inspection. The goal is to find the same recurring forms of conduct, experience and meaning in all of them. Construction lays the groundwork for the final step of interpretation, which is contextualization” (p. 359). Contextualizing “locates the phenomenon in the personal biographies and social environments of the persons being studied” (p. 359). This involves thick description of the phenomenon in the context of the subjects’ experiences.
Lesley
Audio:
Thank you for joining us in this presentation about interpretive paradigms. We have a couple of questions for discussion, and feel free to comment in this thread and we will be more than happy to try and answer your questions – we also look forward to some great discussions!
