Although Interpretivist research closely resembles Critical Theory, there are a number of major differences between the two paradigms (Willis, 2007). When compared to Postpositivism, there are also a number of differences to be noted.
Unlike postpositivism (scientific method), interpretivism believes in a socially constructed reality - a reality that can be external, yet not an "independently knowable reality" (p. 96). The purpose of research in an interpretivist paradigm is to reflect understanding, whereas in postpositivism it is to find universals. Both subjective and objective research methods are acceptable in IR (interpretivist research), and understandings are contextual and universals are deemphasized. Interpretivists assert that "all research is influenced and shaped by preexisting theories and world views of the researchers" (p. 96). Research and practice are integrated and "both guide and become the other" (p. 95). Research is a socially constructed activity and therefore the "reality" it tells us about is also socially constructed. "Making meaning is a group or social process" (p. 97).
Purpose of research: PP looks for universals, CT looks for local instances of universals, IR looks for understanding of a particular context (Willis, p. 98). Interpretests "believe an understanding of the context in which any form of research is conducted is critical to the interpretation of the data gathered" (p. 98).
- concerned with the 'situatedness' of knowledge - thus the goal of IR is "an understanding of a particular situation or context much more than the discovery of universal laws or rules" (p. 99).
verstehen (pp. 100-103)
- German word for 'understanding'
- expresses the idea that understanding the particulars of a situation is an honorable purpose
- goal is to explain and find lawlike rules or generalizations that can be used well beyond the situation studied
- Dilthey - distinguished between 2 types of knowledge = verstehen (understanding) and erklarung (explanation), as well as two types of sciences - natural sciences, and cultural (human, moral, or social) sciences
- Differs from goal of positivist research which is finding lawlike generalizations is fine for the natural sciences but is not a suitable goal for the cultural sciences - makes sense
- goal of research in natural sciences - explanation; goal of research in cultural sciences - understanding; legitimate topic of study - lived experience
- Emic and Etic: 2 contrasting ways of approaching the study of cultures; emic - looks at things through the eyes of members of the culture being studied - what is valid or true is what the members agree upon. Etic view - uses structures or criteria developed outside the culture as a framework for studying the culture - what is true may be judged through comparison of the cultural practices to an external standard or structure.
- terms etic and emic should be seen as adjectives modifying the implicit noun 'knowledge'
- understanding human action in context
- According to Smith (1989) variations of hermeneutics all include 2 common characteristics: an emphasis on the importance of language in understanding. Language makes possible what we can say, and it limits what we can say; An emphasis on the context, particularly the historical context, as a frame for understanding. You cannot understand human behavior and ideas in isolation; they must be understood in context (p. 104)
- Smith - there are at least 3 current versions of hermeneutics - validation, critical, or philosophical
- validation - based on PP and assumes that hermeneutics can be a scientific way of finding the truth
- critical - aims to make transparent and obvious the historical conditions that have led to oppression
- crtical hermeneutics criticizes validation - because it fails to properly account for the possiblity of historically formed ideological distortion and false consciousness
- point of C. hermeneutics is to foster practical engagement or emancipation in light of historical truth
- philosophical hermeneutics - based on interpretivist epistemology - aims at developing understanding - rejects any form of foundationalism - this is, a sure way of finding the truth (p. 104)
- build research on a foundation of "primary or basic truths of science that were self-evidently true"
- first principles (Aristotle) can be understood by thinking about them - which is a form of rationalism, however empiricists can also be foundationalists - as in, "if you take the position that the only way to obtain valid knowledge about the external world is through experience, that is a foundational assumption that canot be proved, thus empiricists are also foundationalists" (p. 105)
- antifoundationalist - there is non dependable foundation on which you can build a philosophy of science (e.g. Popper, Rorty)
- hermeneutic cycle - the process by which we return to a text, or to the world, and derive a new interpretation -- perhaps a new interpretation every time, or a new one for every interpreter.
- supporting theory for interpretive qualitative research and a related movement, existentialism
- phenomenology is the study of people's perception of the world - as opposed to trying to learn what "really is" in the world
- focus is on understanding from the perspective of the person or persons being studied
- Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre
- there are no universals that humans can know without doubt (p. 108)
- form part of the basis for jsutifying social science research that attempts to understand the local context rather than find universals or laws of human behavior
- interpretivists are antifoundationalists: they believe "there is no particular right or correct path to knowledge, no special method that automatically leads to intellectual progress" (p. 109, citing Smith)
- standards used by IRs - understand that they are subjective, and therefore potentially fallible, rather than objective and universal (p. 109, bottom)
- accept almost all the types of quantitative methods that positivists use, but they differ in how they interpret the results of quantitative research, which is one of many potential sources of understanding
- interpretivists also use a broad range of qualitative methods
- also accept reflective discussions of professional practice - thoughtful reflections of experieced practitioners are a prized source of knowledge and understanding for interpretivists
- PP - generally consider practitioner reflections and personal stories to be unacceptable as research - they lack objectivity and are not scientific
- knowledge can never be objective because of our inescapable historicity
- we are always situated in a particular "horizon" of understanding that is based on a combination of cultural and personal presuppositions (prejudices) (p. 112)
- hermeneutics sees the pursuit of truth as essential to human exixtence, but suggests we can never have certainty we have found truth
- research adds to our understanding of different contexts and situations
- interpretivist's understanding is of multiple perspectives on the topic
- common misconception of Interpretivism is that "every opinion and theory is treated equally because there is no way to make objective decisions about what is right" (p. 114 - wording slightly changed)
- in the constructionist [i.e. interpretivist] view, our perceptions, appreciations, and beliefs are rooted in worlds of our own making that we come to accept as reality" (p. 119, citing Schon)
- tacit vs. explicit knowledge - Polanyi
- Aristotle - phronesis = knowledge situated in a context and is dependent on that context (p. 120)
- results of a qualitative study is undersstanding in context rather than rules or laws (p. 121)
- does not specify a certain type of research method
- views all research as subjective, yet this does not mean that every viewpoint is just as good as any other (pp. 122)
- conclusions from any program of research could be wrong and we should all be aware of and open to findings from other perspectives and traditions
- implications - formulated as 'family resemblances', rather than 'absolute truths'
- research can be used outside the context in which it was conducted - users decide what seems applicable and what does not in a new context
- messy, in-context research becomes much more valuable, and well-controlled research conducted out of context is devalued (p. 125)
- awareness and understanding of alternative traditions would become a virtue
- Iran-Nejad et al. (1990) think of learning theories as having two basic thrusts: 1 type assumes that the best way to learn anything is based on the "assumption of simplification by isolation" (generally associated with behavioral and information processing theories) - complex skills are broken down into their components (reading - sounds, letters, words, etc.) - assumption is that component skills are easier to learn when they are separated from other skills with which they are ordinarily integrated
- Iran-Nejad et al. argue that "simplification by integration" is a more promising approach to designing learning environments
- based on the assumption that "the more meaningful, the more deeply or elaboratively processed, the more situated in context, and the more rooted in cultural, background, metacognitive, and personal knowledge an event is, the more readily it is understood, laerned, and remembered" p. 132
- Research as a form of learning - if we base our research on the simplification by integration principle, then interpretive research has much to recommend it
- great diversity in studies
- methods may be structured, semi-structured, or very open
- studies are emergent - meaning of the data is not apparent until it emerges from the process of data collection and analysis (p. 139)
- interpretivism cuts across a number of disciplines and areas of application
- Some authors take this position, whereas others do not
- You may use methods from a paradigm without adopting the core beliefs of that paradigm
- ecunemical - relating to, involving, or promoting the unity of Christian churches around the world; involving friendship between religions, or in this case perhaps 'friendship between paradigms'
- PP - proponents often rely on other types of data
- using a method from another paradigm may involve reinterpreting the meaning of the results, but borrowing methods from a different paradigm is already common
- Rorty's democratic pragmatism - do research within your own paradigm but remain open to methods and results from other paradigms; make an effort to understand what others are saying and be willing to change yoru paradigm, or even give it up for another, if proponents of opposing views can convince you they have merit (p. 140)
Critical Theory | Interpretivism | Postpositivism | |
Nature of Reality | Material and external to the human mind | Socially constructed | External to human mind |
Purpose of Research | Uncover local instances of universal power relationships and empower the oppressed | Reflect understanding | Find universals |
Acceptable Methods and Data | Subjective inquiry based on ideology and values; both quantitative and qualitative data are acceptable | Subjective and objective research methods are acceptable | Scientific method |
Meaning of Data | Interpreted through ideology; used to enlighten and emancipate | Understanding is contextual; universals are deemphasized | Falsification; use to test theory |
Relationship of Research to Practice | Integrated activities; research guided practice | Integrated activities; both guide and become the other | Separate activities; research guides practice |
Chapter 5 - Willis - Frameworks for Qualitative Research:
- in QR there are an unbelievable number of research methods
- the situation in QR constrasts somewhat with the postpositivist paradigm ... okay, wait a minute, I thought that they said PP was QR??? Now I'm getting confused!
- Okay, let's see ... PP research involves 6 basic steps (p. 148):
- find an idea you want to researchdevelop or select a theory about the area you want to research
- develop or select a theory about the area you want to research
- develop specific, testable hypotheses ... should be empirically testable (hypothetical-deductive model)
- design a scientific study to objectively gather quantitative data - wait, aren't these more quantitative research?
- analyze the data and interpret results using guidelines of the scientific method - use PP concept of falsification (positive results don't prove your theory, but add evidence to support it; negative results disprove your theory)
- point of view in a research study can be very different - e.g. fifth floor, second floor, each describing the third floor - is it above or below?? (p. 149) Phillips
- Phillips proposes that we move "not to the rigor mortis of relativism but to the rigor that is needed in competent inquiry"
- "finding truth, not understanding, is the goal of social science research"
- Popper - pp. 149-150 - "any fool can always find some eidence to support a faored theory"
- Phillips - p. 150 - "what serves as more genuine support is that no evidence can be found to disprove the account that is being given; it is up to the person giving the interpretation to convince the rest of us that such negative evidence has been sought vigorously"
- 6. Report your work in an objective manner - p. 150
Chapter then describes 8 'moments' in QR history - ending with today's 'Triple Crisis' p. 154
Denzin and Lincoln argue that the social sciences are in the middle of three crises today: of representation, legitimation, and praxis.
Representation - about the inability of QRs to present in their written reports the lived experiences of those they study. Instead, "such experience ... is created in the social text written by the researcher"
Legitimation - is about warrant: what warrants our attention and why? "How are qualtitative studies to be evaluated in the contemporary, poststructural moment"?
QR does not have one way of establishing warrant, it has many, and they are sometimes contractory ... has not yet arrived at a consensus on how to decide what warrants our attention and what does not
Praxis - is it possible to effect change in the world if society is only and always a text? p. 154
The Fifth or Postmodern Moment
- from idea of research paper reflecting reality to idea of research paper as narrative and storytelling
- abandonment of researcher as an aloof, privileged person who can decide what is true; cooperation and collaboration - that blurs the line btwn researcher and researched; operates in teh real world; includes both critiques of what is and efforts to change was is through "more action, participatory and actiist-oriented research"
- encouragement of new ways of communicating QR
8th moment - 2005-?
research tended to be narrowly defined as quantitative and experimental in the positivist experimental tradition
General Frameworks for QR
A framework is a set of broad concepts that guide research. Researchers working within interpretivist and critical paradigms have a number of frameworks from which to choose.
Analytic Realism (Compatible with both critical and interpretivist paradigms)
- Altheide and Johnson
- what criteria we should use to evaluate interpretive QR
- several approaches for deciding what warrants our attention - such as PP, Critical theory, and constructivism (interpretivism)
- A & J propose an alternate based on analytic realism with a general method called reflexive ethnography
- founded on the view that the social world is an interpreted world .... Analytic realism rejects the dichotomy of realism/idealism, and other conceptual dualisms, as being incompatible with teh nature of lived experiences, and its interpretation" p. 158
- asserts that postpositivism is being rejected and that the emphasis on objective research is untenable
- collection and interpretation of Q data on humans are inherently subjective
- warrant - the values we use to make that decision are ideological, political, moral, and personal. What is considered good research varies from paradigm to paradigm and perspective to perspective.
- p. 161 QR reports usually represent the multiple perspectives that are inherent in most human endeavors; they provide detailed explications of the context
- core of common beliefs that will cut across the paradigms and provide a framework for thinkiing about QR:
- humanistic commitment of the QR to study the world always from the perspective of the interacting individual
- belief that a politics of liberation must always begin with the perspecties, desires and dreams of those individuals and groups who have been oppressed by the larger ideological, economic, and political forces of a society or a historical moment
Chapters 4 and 5 in the Willis textbook push us to further consider some of the elements linked to the foundational concepts of qualitative inquiry. As we make determinations of how to conduct research we must be able to answer core epistemological and ontological questions about how we view reality. The challenge for us as researchers is to take these broad ideas like the nature of reality and then apply it to our given and specific research context. So some of the ideas we are challenged to consider in these two chapters are:
1) Positivism – goal of research is to find lawlike generalizations that can be used well beyond the situation being studied; empirical/scientific process; objective researcher; goal of research – explanation (are we including pp with positivism? I think so)
2) Interpretivism
3) Under these two paradigms the researcher must come to understand these core elements as it pertains to your study:
a. What is the nature of reality? – Ontology - P – external, I – socially constructed
b. What is the purpose of the research? – P & PP – universals; IR - understandings of particular contexts
c. What are acceptable methods and data? IR – uses Objective and subjective, whereas P relies on empirical/scientific method
d. What is the meaning of data? IR – understanding is contextual; universals are deemphasized; P – Mirror to reality, use to develop theory; PP – falsification; data is used to test theories This is the only point at which PP and P differ – the meaning of data – one uses it to test theory, one uses it to develop theory
e. What is the relationship of research and practice? IR – integrated activities, both guide and become the other; P & PP – Separate activities, research guides practice
4) Verstehen – German word for ‘understanding’ – expresses the idea that understanding the particulars of a situation is an honourable purpose; goal is to explain and find lawlike rules or generalizations that can be used well beyond the situation studied; Finding lawlike generalizations for the natural sciences is fine but it is not a suitable goal for the cultural sciences (social sciences). Dilthey – legitimate topic of study was lived experience; goal of research - understanding
5) Hermeneutics – understanding human action in context; 2 important characteristics: an emphasis on the importance of language in understanding, and an emphasis on the context, particularly the historical context, as a frame for understanding – cannot understand human ideas and behaviour in isolation – they must be understood in context.
6) Phenomenology – the study of people’s perceptions of the world – as opposed to trying to learn what “really is” in the world; focus is on understanding from the perspective of the person or persons being studied; Heidegger, Sartre; there are no universals humans can know without doubt; understand the local context rather than find universals or laws
7) Moments in Qualitative Research: The Rise of qualitative genres:
a. The Traditional Period – Early 1900s-WWII
i. Other cultures studied from perspective of researcher’s own culture; classic ethnographic method – go into another culture, make field notes of observations, then write conclusions – e.g. Margaret Mead – 4 main characteristics: objectivism; complicity in imperialism - often supported them; belief in monumentalism – ethnography would create a museum like picture of the culture studied; belief in the timelessness or universal nature of findings
b. The Modernist Period – 1940s-1970s – an attempt to put QR on the same footing as Quant. Research – to make it a quantitative, objective, and statistical approach
c. Blurred Genres – 1970s-1986 – Geertz – argues for an approach that rejects all four of the foundations of the traditional period (objectivism, imperialism, monumentalism, and timelessness). He proposes a social science based in “thick” descriptions and an approach that emphasizes seeking multiple perspectives, interpretive rather than positivist explanations and purposes, open-ended methods, and the situatedness of knowing (the idea that we understand only in context)
d. Crisis of Representation – mid 1980s – social science leaders recognized that “their methods and the methods of Quantitative social science were never going to represent a singular reality. Feminist and critical epistemologies grew in influence during this period, and the influence of traditional research methods that led us to some form of universal truth decreased; writing became a method of research- data collection is determined in part by what we write and vice versa; field work and writing blur into one another; in the final analysis there is no difference between writing and fieldwork
e. Current genre – A triple crisis – Representation, legitmation, and praxis
i. 5th or Postmodern Moment – shift from idea of research paper reflecting the reality of a particular context to the idea of the research paper as narrative or storytelling; as well as abandonment of the researcher as an aloof, privileged person who can decide what is true – a movement toward an emphasis on cooperation and collaboration – blurs the line between researcher and researched, operates in the real world, and includes both critiques of what is and efforts to change what is through “more action, participatory and activist-oriented research” . Search for ‘grand narratives’ was being replaced by more local, small-scale theories fitted to specific problems and specific situations” (p. 155)
ii. Postexperimental inquiry moment – new publishing options and ways of communicating qualitative research
iii. Methodologically contested moment – a number of qualitative journals began publishing; period of conflict and anxiety as the field developed institutional components such as journals and thus needed ways of achieving consensus on topics such as how to decide which articles to publish
iv. Methodological backlash – for social science, research tended to be narrowly defined as quantitative and experimental in the positivist, experimental tradition; the qualitative research act can no longer be viewed from within a neutral, or objective, positivist perspective; class, race, gender, and ethnicity shape inquiry, making research a multicultural process
8) Frameworks of Qualitative Research
a. Analytic Realism – reflexive qualitative research must attend to 5 issues: contextualism, interaction (researcher, by being there changes the setting and may develop relationships with participants p. 159); perspective – whatever is presented is a perspective and not truth in a postpositivist sense; reader roles – if the purpose of a research report is not to pass on truth to readers, what is it for? Keep roles you expect readers to play in mind; style – diverse ways of presenting
b. Denzin and Lincoln’s Interpretive Perspective – PP is being rejected and the emphasis on objective research is untenable; collection and interpretation of qualitative data on humans are inherently subjective; interpretation as an art; warrant – values we use to make decisions are ideological, political, moral and personal; what is considered good research varies from paradigm to paradigm and perspective to perspective; QR reports generally represent multiple perspectives; humanistic commitment of QR to study the world always from the perspective of the interacting individual; politics of liberation must always begin with perspectives, desires, and dreams of oppressed
c. Eisner’s Connoisseurship Model of Inquiry – 7 premises: multiple perspectives; human knowledge is constructed; forms influence what can be said; effective use of any form requires intelligence; form influences what we as researchers see; multiple methods of research makes studies more complete and informative; forms accepted are determined in part by political as much as epistemological matters. Once the connoisseur communicates his or her view to others, it becomes criticism – negative, positive, or mixture of both – 4 aspects – description, interpretation, evaluation, and explication of broad or general themes. 6 Features of QR: field focused; researcher as instrument of research; is interpretive; presented in an expressive voice, with researcher clearly present in text – we display our signatures; attends to particulars; 3 criteria for appraising transactive accounts : coherence, consensus, instrumental utility, as well as insightfulness. These 3 (4) are essentially replacements for the PP’s concepts of validity and reliability. You could translate the term validity into believability.
9) Semiotics – the study of signs and their meanings for humans/ and the meanings ascribed to them; has been used as a framework to study how we derive meaning from visual images and other types of signs
10) The Phenomenological Psychology Model – based on the assumption that the subjects of psychological research have consciousness just as the researcher does, but that the subjects of natural science research do not; focuses on this point and is in many ways the study of consciousness; Real things – noumena and our perceptions of real things – phenomena. Real things that exist vs. Our perception of them. Focus in phenomenology is on the perceived thing. Perception of an external object is necessarily a partial, subjective, and incomplete one; it does not mirror reality.
11) Poststructuralism and Postmodernism – argue that what structuralists find are not givens to be accepted as the standard or normal way things are but are instead products of a particular culture, context, and set of experiences. Reject that what is being discovered is in any way universal or common across individuals or groups
12) Symbolic Interactionism (I have a doctoral student using this in his study right now) – 7 assumptions: humans act towards things on the basis of meanings that the things have for them; meanings of things arise out of the process of social interaction; meanings are modified through an interpretive process, which involves self-reflective individuals symbolically interacting with one another; humans create the worlds of experience in which they live; the meanings of these worlds come from interactions, and they are shaped by the self-reflections persons bring to their situations; such self-interaction is interwoven with social interaction and influences that social interaction – symbolic interaction (merger of self and social interaction) is the chief means by which hums are able to form social or joint acts; joint acts, their formation, dissolution, conflict and merger, constitute what Blumer calls ‘the social life of a human society’ A society consists of joint or social acts ‘which are formed and carried out by the members’. A core of SI is subjective meaning. Things are not as they seem. Human interaction is not based solely on the way the external world “really “ is. It is based, instead, on how humans interpret their world. SI – loose set of assumptions about how symbols are used to create a shared frame of meaning which in turn, is used to organize and to interpret human behaviour in loose and ever changing patterns of work, commerce, family, workship an play. There are also 7 epistemological characteristics of symbolic interaction theory: general theories are not useful; local understanding is important; objectivity and quantification are not desirable; imported theories form the natural sciences are not desirable; ahistorical theories are inadequate; theories that ignore individuals miss much; ask how questions not why questions. Foundations of SI are basically the same as interpretivism. Interpretivism is a broader term.
Questions: p. 147 – What does it mean, “The situation in Qualitative Research contrasts somewhat with the postpositivist paradigm”
Whereas QR is interested in obtaining subjective interpretations of situations, QnR are interested in obtaining an objective view. The PP paradigm is more aligned with QnR with its focus on the scientific method and objective research. The researcher in QnR is to be separate from the research/ed - assuming an objective stance whereas in QR the researcher situates themselves within the research and brings their unique view to bear.
Whereas QR is interested in obtaining subjective interpretations of situations, QnR are interested in obtaining an objective view. The PP paradigm is more aligned with QnR with its focus on the scientific method and objective research. The researcher in QnR is to be separate from the research/ed - assuming an objective stance whereas in QR the researcher situates themselves within the research and brings their unique view to bear.
Going from Willis’ definition of Qualitative Research:
Is it a match for PP research? No!
No comments:
Post a Comment