Research Methods – POGO8096 & POGO8196
Interpretive approaches:
key principles
10 March 2009
Dr. Carolyn M. Hendriks
The Crawford School of Economics and Government
The Australian National University
carolyn.hendriks@anu.edu.au
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 researcher
eg. your history, motivations, ethics
2. your research frames/paradigms/perspectives
eg. positivist, post-positivist, interpretivism, constructivism, feminist
3. your research strategies
eg. research design, case studies, ethnography, action research
4. your methods of data generation and analysis
eg. interviewing, observing, focus groups, discourse analysis etc
5. how you interpret and present the research
eg. 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
‘knowability’ of the
subject
ontology
 does the subject exist?
 is it ‘objective real’ and
capable of being ‘captured’
or ‘collected’?
 or is it socially
constructed?
epistemology
 what do we believe we can
know about the subject?
 e.g. can it be measured,
counted, interpreted, observed
etc?
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
life histories
case studies – thick descriptions
participant observations
ethnography
grounded theory
more critical-theoretical
discourse analysis
critical theory
action research
post-structural analysis
feminist
Some applications of interpretive processes (i)
(See readings)
Yanow (2006)
1. Generating data
 observing
 interviewing
 reading documents
2.
3.


Methods of analysing data
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.