1. Interpretive approaches: key principles 10 March 2009 Dr. Carolyn M. Hendriks The Crawford School of Economics and Government The Australian National University carolyn.hendriks@anu.edu.au Research Methods – POGO8096 & POGO8196

2. Overview Central theme for next three lectures: the principles and practice of interpretive research Today: our research motivations and frames a historical look at the quantitative/qualitative divide key principles of interpretive methods

3. What are we trying to do in our research? 1. making claims to knowledge 2. trying to promote change/facilitate action Will our claims be taken seriously? What makes them ‘scientific’? eg. rigorous, replicable, reproducible much of social research does not meet these ‘scientific’ criteria when taken literally e.g. ‘rigorous’ literally = rigid, stiff, step-by-step But it is systematic, practice-orientated

4. Methodological layers of research…. 1. you as a researcher eg. your history, motivations, ethics 2. your research frames/paradigms/perspectives eg. positivist, post-positivist, interpretivism, constructivism, feminist 3. your research strategies eg. research design, case studies, ethnography, action research 4. your methods of data generation and analysis eg. interviewing, observing, focus groups, discourse analysis etc 5. how you interpret and present the research eg. making sense of the data, evaluating, writing up and communicating (after Denzin & Lincoln 2000, p. 20)

5. Why does our background and frames matter?  communicating to multiple audiences  assumptions not self-evident  being explicit about our motivations and aspirations  acknowledging our ‘effect’ on our research

6. Our research frames reality status of subject ontology  does the subject exist?  is it ‘objective real’ and capable of being ‘captured’ or ‘collected’?  or is it socially constructed?  what do we believe we can know about the subject?  e.g. can it be measured, counted, interpreted, observed etc? ‘knowability’ of the subject epistemology

7. Historical basis for quant/qual divide  division is a historical one  quantitative approaches numerically focussed inspired by natural science paradigm (logical positivism) research makes objective assessments aim to test hypotheses or generate casual explanations  term ‘qualitative’ emerged out of field studies @ Chicago School early-mid 20th C ethnography in anthropology participant observation in sociology  traditional distinction was: quantitative – count things qualitative – interpret things (meaning focussed, lived experience)

8. Debunking the quant/qual divide  today ‘qualitative’ (unhelpfully) means much more also includes small ‘n’ studies that apply large ‘n’ tools test concepts, theories, hypotheses in the field eg. questionnaires, focus groups, q-methodology. Also qualitative researchers count things, and quantitative researchers interpret data 3 types of research approaches:  quantitative (large n)  positivist-qualitative (small ‘n’, with n tools)  traditional qualitative (interpretive methods)

9. Principles of Interpretive methods…  meaning focused interpret perspectives, events, objects  reflexive 1. historical and social context of research 2. acknowledge researcher’s presence  orientated towards language written, spoken, inferred text observed acts artefacts  data not numbers but people/experiences/actions/objects accessed and generated (not collected and discovered)  use of theory inductive (grounded in experience)

10. What is ‘meaning focused’? meaning making = interpretation interpretive research aims to interpret (find meaning) in social phenomenon Thus, as researchers we might e.g. interpreting…. lived experiences the perspective of those involved in the phenomenon events, processes language/ text to identifying frames symbols and artefacts observed behaviour and what people (e.g. policy actors) do

11. Examples of interpretive methods

12. more descriptivemore critical-theoretical life historiesdiscourse analysis case studies – thick descriptionscritical theory participant observationsaction research ethnographypost-structural analysis grounded theoryfeminist

13. Some applications of interpretive processes (i) (See readings) Yanow (2006) 1. Generating data  observing  interviewing  reading documents 2. Methods of analysing data 3. Some examples  category making (Yanow, 2003)  participatory storylines (Hendriks 2006)

14. Some applications of interpretive processes (ii) SEE readings Ospina & Dodge (2005) Narrative inquiry – study of leadership in public administration

15. Some topics for discussion  experience of interpretive research - pros & cons  experiences in analysing interpretive data  challenges in combining qualitative/quantitative methods  tips on interviewing and field work  on triangulation: what is it? what does the metaphor suggest?

16. Further reading (see also resource list) Denzin, NK, 1994, ‘The Art and Politics of Interpretation’, In: Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 500-515. Layder, D, 1998, Sociological Practice Linking Theory and Social Research, Sage, London. Yanow, D, 1996, How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions, Georgetown University Press, Washington. Yanow, D, 2000, Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks. Yanow, D, 2003, Constructing "Race" And "Ethnicity" In America, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y. Yanow, D and Schwartz-Shea, P (eds) (2006), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y. Weiss, RS, 1994, Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies, The Free Press, New York.