Interpretive approaches: key principles

10 March 2009

Dr. Carolyn M. HendriksThe Crawford School of Economics and Government

The Australian National University carolyn.hendriks@anu.edu.au

Research Methods – POGO8096 & POGO8196

Overview

Central theme for next three lectures:

the principles and practice of interpretive research

Today:• our research motivations and frames• a historical look at the quantitative/qualitative divide • key principles of interpretive methods

What are we trying to do in our research?

1. making claims to knowledge

2. trying to promote change/facilitate action

Will our claims be taken seriously?

What makes them ‘scientific’?eg. rigorous, replicable, reproducible

much of social research does not meet these ‘scientific’ criteria when taken literally

e.g. ‘rigorous’ literally = rigid, stiff, step-by-step

But it is systematic, practice-orientated

Methodological layers of research….

1. you as a researchereg. your history, motivations, ethics

2. your research frames/paradigms/perspectiveseg. positivist, post-positivist, interpretivism, constructivism, feminist

3. your research strategieseg. research design, case studies, ethnography, action research

4. your methods of data generation and analysiseg. interviewing, observing, focus groups, discourse analysis etc

5. how you interpret and present the researcheg. making sense of the data, evaluating, writing up and communicating

(after Denzin & Lincoln 2000, p. 20)

Why does our background and frames matter?

communicating to multiple audiences assumptions not self-evident being explicit about our motivations and aspirations acknowledging our ‘effect’ on our research

Our research frames

reality status of subject

ontology

does the subject exist? is it ‘objective real’ and capable

of being ‘captured’ or ‘collected’? or is it socially constructed?

what do we believe we can know about the subject?

e.g. can it be measured, counted, interpreted, observed etc?

‘knowability’ of the

subject

epistemology

Historical basis for quant/qual divide

division is a historical one

quantitative approaches numerically focussed inspired by natural science paradigm (logical positivism) research makes objective assessments aim to test hypotheses or generate casual explanations

term ‘qualitative’ emerged out of field studies @ Chicago School early-mid 20th C

ethnography in anthropology participant observation in sociology

traditional distinction was: quantitative – count things qualitative – interpret things (meaning focussed, lived experience)

Debunking the quant/qual divide

today ‘qualitative’ (unhelpfully) means much more also includes small ‘n’ studies that apply large ‘n’ tools test concepts, theories, hypotheses in the field eg. questionnaires, focus groups, q-methodology.

Also qualitative researchers count things, and quantitative researchers interpret data

3 types of research approaches: quantitative (large n) positivist-qualitative (small ‘n’, with n tools) traditional qualitative (interpretive methods)

Principles of Interpretive methods…

meaning focused interpret perspectives, events, objects

reflexive 1. historical and social context of research

2. acknowledge researcher’s presence

orientated towards language written, spoken, inferred text observed acts artefacts

data not numbers but people/experiences/actions/objects accessed and generated (not collected and discovered)

use of theory inductive (grounded in experience)

What is ‘meaning focused’?

meaning making = interpretation interpretive research aims to interpret (find meaning) in social phenomenon

Thus, as researchers we might e.g. interpreting….

lived experiences the perspective of those involved in the phenomenon events, processes language/ text to identifying frames symbols and artefacts observed behaviour and what people (e.g. policy actors) do

Examples of interpretive methods

Examples of interpretive methods

more descriptive more critical-theoretical

life histories discourse analysis

case studies – thick descriptions critical theory

participant observations action research

ethnography post-structural analysis

grounded theory feminist

Some applications of interpretive processes (i)

(See readings)

Yanow (2006)1. Generating data

observing interviewing reading documents

2. Methods of analysing data

3. Some examples category making (Yanow, 2003) participatory storylines (Hendriks 2006)

Some applications of interpretive processes (ii)

SEE readings

Ospina & Dodge (2005)

Narrative inquiry – study of leadership in public administration

Some topics for discussion

experience of interpretive research - pros & cons

experiences in analysing interpretive data

challenges in combining qualitative/quantitative methods

tips on interviewing and field work

on triangulation: what is it? what does the metaphor suggest?

Further reading (see also resource list)

Denzin, NK, 1994, ‘The Art and Politics of Interpretation’, In: Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 500-515.

Layder, D, 1998, Sociological Practice Linking Theory and Social Research, Sage, London.

Yanow, D, 1996, How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions, Georgetown University Press, Washington.

Yanow, D, 2000, Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Yanow, D, 2003, Constructing "Race" And "Ethnicity" In America, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Yanow, D and Schwartz-Shea, P (eds) (2006), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Weiss, RS, 1994, Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies, The Free Press, New York.