Interpretive research – another look Paul ‘t Hart ANU/RSSS and UU/USG

Designing research: 3 types of considerations Research object: what is to be studied? Research object: what is to be studied? Research interest: what do you want to know about it? Research interest: what do you want to know about it? Ontological premises: what is this object like - `real’ or `constructed’? Ontological premises: what is this object like - `real’ or `constructed’? Epistemological premises: what sort of knowledge about this object can/should be gathered? Epistemological premises: what sort of knowledge about this object can/should be gathered? Methodological premises: which (combination of) tools for data gathering and analysis yields the ‘best’ knowledge Methodological premises: which (combination of) tools for data gathering and analysis yields the ‘best’ knowledge Audiences: for whom/what is your study intended? Audiences: for whom/what is your study intended? Resources: how much expertise, time, money etc are available to conduct the study? Resources: how much expertise, time, money etc are available to conduct the study? Constraints/opportunities: what sort of access and reporting conditions apply? Constraints/opportunities: what sort of access and reporting conditions apply?

The big divide between interpretive research and its others is often said to boil down mainly to premises

From premises to methods Ontology: premises about nature of (social) reality shape: Epistemology: premises about proper knowledge about (social) reality shape: Methodolology: preferences for (packages of data- gathering and analysis techniques

Two traditions compared Positivist Objectivist ontology: reality given Objectivist epistemology: researcher as observer and predictor of patterns of behavior and events Descriptive Q’s: what happens? Explaining=predicting (rooted in generalizations, causal models) Interpretive Subjectivist ontology: reality socially constructed Subjectivist epistemology: researcher interpreter of talk, thought, meaning in specific situations Descriptive Q’s: how is it experienced? Explaining=understanding (e.g. beliefs and actions of actors in specific contexts)

Two traditions compared Positivist Good theory Parsimony, predictive accuracy, ‘elegance’ Preference for deduction Methodological obsessions: Validity, reliability of measurements and analyses Interpretive Good theory: Plausibility, meaningful, contextual, ‘rich’ Preference for induction Methodological obsessions: Getting ‘up close’, doing justice to subjectivity and complexity, being reflexive

Bút (1) Premises are what they are: premises. They are not eternal truths but rather expendable tools Premises are what they are: premises. They are not eternal truths but rather expendable tools Factors influencing choice of O/E premises depends on: research object, research question, researcher’s preferences, intuition, experience. Factors influencing choice of O/E premises depends on: research object, research question, researcher’s preferences, intuition, experience.

But (2): At the level of concrete research design, researchers from both traditions often see fit to combine methods stemming from both traditions to strengthen their study (triangulation). At the level of concrete research design, researchers from both traditions often see fit to combine methods stemming from both traditions to strengthen their study (triangulation). So, whilst O/E premises may seem incompatible, design and/or methods choices are often more flexible, pragmatic. There is value in hybrids! So, whilst O/E premises may seem incompatible, design and/or methods choices are often more flexible, pragmatic. There is value in hybrids!

So, the ‘big divide’ is overblown and unhelpful. We are better off thinking of the two traditions as representing bundles of beliefs and toolkits concerning social science research that can more often than not be usefully be combined in research designs that are more robust and creative than designs steeped in only one tradition and employing only the narrowest range of methods

Making informed design choices Know philosophical pros/cons of both traditions Know philosophical pros/cons of both traditions Explore the middle ground between them (Weber, Giddens etc) Explore the middle ground between them (Weber, Giddens etc) Know the design/methods ‘toolkits’ associated with both traditions (study them ‘at work’ in other people’s research), and their inherent strengths and limitations Know the design/methods ‘toolkits’ associated with both traditions (study them ‘at work’ in other people’s research), and their inherent strengths and limitations Don’t be lazy/fearful: positivism does not equal tough mathematics; interpretivism does not equal `anything goes’ softness Don’t be lazy/fearful: positivism does not equal tough mathematics; interpretivism does not equal `anything goes’ softness Go for triangulation if you possibly can Go for triangulation if you possibly can