Interpretivism:
aparke@lincoln.ac.uk
The research problem

Impact of Information Technology on gambling behaviour

Under-researched phenomena (minimal knowledge of
hypotheses or even core variables)

Through explorative studies build a substantive
understanding of phenomena

Grounded Theory produced theoretical framework to
shape investigation

Empirical Testing of Hypotheses
The research problem

Observed:
1.
Pariticipants have increased gambling participation
since availability of online gambling
Participants believed through manipulation of IT
processes that profitable control in gambling was
possible
Participants stated the primary objective of online
gambling was profit accumulation
Significant proportion of online gamblers actively
attempted to achieve profitable control via IT
Profit accumulated was positively correlated with
engagement in IT processes (multiple samples)
2.
3.
4.
5.
The research problem
Theoretical Limitations:
 Dots appeared to connect (at face value at least)

Do the participants make the same connection (i.e. is
gambling an economically motivated activity)

The theory lacked depth (using outcome to explain
behaviour)
Wanted to know:
How has their understanding of
gambling changed in response to
these changes?
Needed an epistemology that could
provide such ‘knowledge’
Interpretivism

Not a specific epistemology, rather a loose category

In general, takes a position that is non-positivist (not
necessarily anti-positivist)

Difference in subject matter is profound

Natural Reality versus Social Reality

Emphasis is on Empathic Understanding rather than
External Explanation
Interpretivism
‘The world of nature as explored by the
natural scientist does not mean anything
to the molecules, atoms and electrons.
But the field of the social scientist – Social
Reality – has a specific meaning and
relevance for the beings living, acting and
thinking within it.’ (Schutz, 1962)
Interpreted Social Reality

What is a good community to you?
Verstehen

Sociology Philosopher Max Weber (preceding
modern social science)

Antipositivist approach to social action (sociological
positivism & economic determinism are limited)

Against the emphasis of ‘impersonal’ external factors
explaining action

Verstehen – systematic process of outsider observing a
culture, attempting to ‘relate’

Criticism – Can an outsider ever ‘understand’ another
participant/culture?
Epistemologies of Interpretivism
Symbolic Interactionism –
Understanding social behaviour by focusing
on practices
Interaction with reality is MEDIATED by the process of
‘making sense’ - performed through social interaction
We then act on such interpretations
‘Meaning’ is not static but changed iteratively through
experience
Meaning of ‘father’ changes with experience, and this
change affects action
Epistemologies of Interpretivism
Phenomenology
 Understanding ‘social reality’ must be grounded in
people’s experiences of that reality

Prevailing understanding/knowledge must be
forgotten, and the phenomena experienced ‘anew’
(bracketing off)

Accessing subjective experience: exploration of
personal experience to understand reality

External logic vs Internal logic of participant (not
group level but individual logic)
Epistemologies of Interpretivism
Hermeneutics

Social reality is socially constructed and not routed in
objective fact

Argue that interpretation should be given more weight
than explanation and description

Social Reality is too complex to understand through
observation alone
Ricoeur (1970) 2 forms of hermeneutics
1)
Meaning-recollection – to inform and confirm
2)
Hermeneutics of Suspicion – looking past superficial
layer
Models separation between Phenomenology and
Hermeneutics
Epistemologies of Interpretivism: Progression

Common thread of antipathy of positivism in
understanding social action

Interpretivist research enables unanticipated findings

Modern Interpretivist aware of limitation of
‘understanding’ (i.e. double hermeneutic)

Triple Hermeneutic?
Interpret findings in relation to
existing theoretical framework

Knowledge is filtered
Real differences Vs. Positivism?

Probably more shallow than deep (choice of research
method)

Assumptions of Positivism (from Interpretivist approach)
are misguided

Use of arcane language in Interpretivism impedes
understanding?

Shared goal of improving knowledge of phenomena

Becomes about strategic method selection to ascertain
specific type of knowledge