Interpretive Inquiry

Philosophical Issues

For interpretivists, the most crucial philosophical realization of the recent past is that there can be no theory-free observation or knowledge. Although nearly all researchers agree that observation/knowledge is influenced strongly by the interests and values of the observer, interpretivists are the most aggressive in pursuing the implications of this realization. When this idea is taken to its logical conclusion, they conclude that it undermines various key elements of both quantitative research and the methodically driven [Page 460]forms of qualitative research. In particular, this realization undermines the philosophical doctrine of realism/neorealism.

Most approaches to social and educational research are based on a realist/neorealist position holding that there is a reality “out there” that can be known or depicted as it really is, at least in principle, independent of the interests and purposes of researchers. Interpretivists find this claim to be unintelligible. Although they have no problem with the idea that there is a reality “out there,” they argue that the idea of no theory-free observation/knowledge means that as finite humans we can never access that reality as it really is. There is no way to factor out or eliminate the influence of the particular interests and purposes of particular researchers.

This does not mean that interpretivists are antirealists in the sense that they believe that nothing exists outside of our minds. They are nonrealists, meaning they believe that there may be a reality “out there,” but our descriptions/interpretations of that reality are not “out there.” Social and educational reality is always something we make or construct, not something we find or discover.

This nonrealist position leads to a number of crucial issues that differentiate interpretive inquiry from other forms of research. First, interpretivists are antifoundationalists in the sense that they do not accept that there is a foundation (Archimedean point) on which to base knowledge claims because there is no privileged position from which to interpret the world. There is no theory-free knowledge and, accordingly, no foundation on which to adjudicate different claims to knowledge. This means that no interpretation or construction of reality can be judged as uniquely right or wrong. Various constructions of what is happening in a social setting at any particular time can be given, but none is free of further interpretation and reinterpretation based on different interests and purposes.

...