Cultural Research
Relativism/Interpretivism
Relativism
• As mentioned in lecture three, positivism and
relativism are ontologically similar but
epistemologically different
• If the sentence above does not mean much
to you, this is simply because it uses some
well-established jargon from the field of
research philosophies
Ontology
• This is a technical term for theories of
being, or of the nature of reality (it
comes from the Greek verb “to be”)
• For example, “realism” and “idealism”,
which we also met in lecture three, are
opposing ontologies
Epistemology
• This is a technical term for theories of
knowledge - what counts as knowledge
and how can we achieve it (and how
can we know when we have achieved
it!)
• It derives from the Greek word for
“knowledge”
Epistemology…
… a legacy of the Ancient Greeks
Relativism
• Is the “scientific method” (derived from
positivism) the only reliable way of
producing knowledge, or are there
better alternatives for generating
different kinds of knowledge?
Relativism
• Positivism and relativism share the
same broad ontology in that both
accept that there is indeed only one,
external, reality
Relativism
• They differ in that while positivism is
interested in finding the “universal” laws
of that reality - laws which apply to all relativism is interested in how individual
or collective experience of that reality
varies according to a wide range of
factors
Relativism
• As a result, its epistemological basis its view of how useful knowledge is to
be produced - and the research
methods which flow from that, are very
different from those of positivism
Relativism
• While debates over ontology and
epistemology can at times seem
frustratingly (and unnecessarily)
arcane, they have important
consequences for how research is
envisaged and carried out
Deductive methods
• Positivism is characterised by
deductive methods
• Theories are developed, from which
hypotheses are produced, these being
tested against empirical data in order to
be confirmed or rejected
Deductive methods
Inductive methods
• These methods - of which there are
several, including interviews, focus
groups, participant observation and
Grounded Theory - are in some ways
the direct opposite of the scientific
method
Inductive methods
• They begin not with theories, but with
the data itself
• The researcher immerses him/herself in
the data, searches for patterns,
regularities and uniformities
• On the basis of these insights,
explanations are then offered
Grounded Theory
• GT is a highly formalised method of
“qualitative” (relativistic) research
developed by American academics
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in
the 1960s (though they later disagreed
on how it should best be carried out)
Grounded Theory
Glaser and Strauss
Grounded Theory
• It involves:
– The researcher approaching the object of study
with as few assumptions or preconceptions as
possible
– “theoretical” rather than “random” sampling, i.e.
choosing respondents in line with the
requirements of the developing theory
Grounded Theory
– Continuing the “conversation” until
“saturation” is reached - i.e. until the point
when nothing new is said
• GT is the most ambitious of the
relativist methods, since it claims to
produce real theory at the end of the
process
Outline of a real-life GT
project
Outline of a real-life GT
project
Outline of a real-life GT
project
From Christina Goulding, Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for
Managementt, Business and Market Researchers, London, Sage
Publications, 2002
Other approaches
• Other approaches within the relativist/
interpretivist paradigm are less
formalised (though they do have agreed
procedures), and also less ambitious
Other approaches
• The main ones are:
– Interviews
– Focus groups
– Participant observation
Other approaches
• All of these carry significant ethical
considerations, and these must be
addressed and approval sought before
the research begins
• For example, covert observation - i.e.
without the consent of those being
observed - is no longer allowed
Other approaches
• All of these will probably require recording
(whether video or audio) and subsequent
transcription
• The participants’ permission must be gained
before recording can take place
• The storing of information regarding
participants on computers has implications
under the Freedom of Information Act
Interviews
• These can be:
– Structured (an agreed list of questions
which are strictly adhered to)
– Semi-structured (agreed questions but
with room for “improvisation”)
– Unstructured (no agreed questions, made
up “on the hoof”)
Focus Groups
• Should have 6-10 members
• Never claim to be “representative”.
Nonetheless, you should be able to
provide a rationale for the composition
of your group
• Can be facilitated by the researcher or
an “independent” person
Participant Observation
• Must be “overt”
• Can range from brief participation - e.g. the
duration of a football match - to long-term
participation lasting many months
• As in all these methods, the researcher must
be aware at all times of his/her influence on
the situation/participation
Relativism/Interpretivism
An Example
The Project
• In 2006 I undertook a project with a Catalan
colleague researching the links (if any)
between soap operas produced in Scotland
and Catalonia and the question of Scottish or
Catalan “national identity”
• We chose these two countries since they
both qualify as “stateless nations”
The Project
• The four products analysed were:
– Catalonia:
• El cor de la ciutat
• Ventdelplà
– Scotland
• High Road
• River City
• In each case one of these was urban, and
the other rural
Some images from the
soaps
High Road
Ventdelplà
Some images from the
soaps
River City
El Cor
The Project
• Although this was a Media Studies
project, its particular blend of methods
(all deriving from an overarching
relativist methodology) could easily be
used in other non-media projects
The Project
• It involved the following methods:
– Historical research: how did the members
of these societies come to view
themselves as “nations”, and what were
the processes through which they came to
be currently without “states”
The Project
• It involved the following methods:
– Institutional research: of the broadcasting
companies responsible for the soaps in
question - one commercial and two public
service - their history, past and current
strategies and so on. This included
(structured) interviews with producers,
directors and scriptwriters
The Project
• It involved the following methods:
– Discourse Analysis: we chose one episode
from each of the four soaps and analysed
them carefully for the inclusion of
discourses of national identity (more on
discourses in the next lecture)
The Project
• It involved the following methods:
– Focus Groups: six in all, three from each
country, one each from the following
categories - urban, suburban, rural/semi
rural
The Project
• It involved the following methods:
– The format of the focus groups was as follows:
•
•
•
•
Initial questionnaire
Viewing of the episode chosen
Discussion of that episode
Closing questionnaire
• The focus groups were facilitated by a
Research Assistant
The Project
• The data provided by all of these
methods allowed us then to develop
our analysis
• We concluded that national identity is
indeed present in these productions,
but the way in which this happens
varies from country to country
The Project
• The most important elements in
accounting for these differences were:
– The existence of a Catalan public
broadcasting company
– The very differing status of the respective
“local” languages, Catalan and Scots
The Article
• You will find the final article along with
this lecture
• Have a read at it and consider whether
this kind of mix of methods might be
useful to you in any research you might
want to undertake.
Many thanks