Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Interpretive research is a framework and practice within social science research that is invested in philosophical and methodological ways of understanding social reality. It is widely viewed as a practice (and a set of paradigms) embedded in different theoretical frameworks ranging from ethnomethodology to critical feminist theory. As an epistemological framework, it has been used widely across the social and human sciences, especially anthropology, sociology, communication, cultural studies, social work, and education.

Central to the interpretive framework is the notion of Verstehen or understanding (first discussed by Max Weber). Since Weber, several philosophers and social scientists have emphasized the inseparability of understanding from interpretation. At some level, then, all social research is interpretive because all such research is guided by the researcher's desire to understand (and therefore interpret) social reality. Whether the focus is on quanta or qualia, at bottom it is still understanding that is being sought by researchers across the board. In a Nietzschean sense, then, there are “no facts, only interpretations.” However, the kind of understanding being sought is usually determined by researchers based on the varying ontological, epistemological, and methodological beliefs to which they subscribe.

Having said that all social research is interpretive, it becomes important to somewhat disentangle what interpretive research means within the larger complex web of qualitative research. Within qualitative research, interpretive paradigms, practices, and methods have become central and have been constantly shaping and reshaping specific research methods. This antinaturalistic framework (from postpositivist naturalism to inter-pretivism and postmodern hermeneutics) focuses on understanding and meaning-making, as opposed to explanation, as the main purpose of research.

Schools of Thought in Interpretive Research

Over several decades, social science researchers have emphasized that qualitative understanding of any phenomenon is based in making meaning of specific experiences and, therefore, is inherently an interpretive practice.

Hermeneutics

According to Hans-Georg Gadamer, hermeneutics (literally the study of interpretation with its historical roots in biblical interpretations) recognizes that our being and doing are intimately connected. This is the way we are fundamentally, and philosophical hermeneutics focuses in different ways on the relationship between the predisposed self-understanding of the interpreter and the “active character” of everything that addresses this understanding.

Ethnography and Interpretation

Clifford Geertz criticized what he called the “casual references” to the Verstehen approach or emic analysis and emphasized the need to acknowledge that it is interpretation, rather than an exact understanding, that qualitative researchers can hope for. At bottom, according to Geertz, anthropological research and representation is only interpretive—and second- or thirdhand at that—given that the firsthand “understanding” or “interpretation” really lies with the “subject” such as the individual, group, or community being studied.

Qualitative Methods and the Interpretive Turn

Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln discussed the tension in qualitative research between the interpretive and postpositivist sensibilities. In interpretive research, meaning is disclosed, discovered, and experienced. The emphasis is on sensemaking, description, and detail. For the antinaturalistic interpretive researcher, human action constitutes subjective interpretations of meanings. Therefore, meaning-making is underscored as the primary goal of interpretive research in the understanding of social phenomena.

Traditional Ethnography, the Chicago School, and Decolonizing Research

Over time, interpretive theories have shifted from colonizing postpositivist theories toward emancipatory theories such as feminism. Traditional interpretive research saw colonizers (missionaries included) and White male anthropologists interpreting the “native” through the study of “other” cultures. By the end of the 19th century, the Chicago School emphasized the development of an interpretive methodology that focused on narrative life histories allowing the researcher to tell the subject's story. Although this was a huge shift from earlier paradigms methodologically (for the first time, life stories were told as spoken by ordinary people and were accepted as scholarship), this project was still implicated in a racist one. The underlying suggestion was that first colonizers and then White male scholars provided the natives and people of color across the world with history and research. A large part of scholarship in the social sciences and the humanities was geared in aiding this process. Feminist writer bell hooks, in her reading of the cover of Stephen Tyler's book Writing Culture, illustrated the intersection of race and gender in these othering Orientalist studies of culture and meanings.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading