1. In praise of methodological messiness: (Re)claiming the hermeneutics of inquiry Ann Robertson, Jessica Polzer, Bronwen Williams University of Toronto March 30, 2006

2. 2 Presentation Focus 1. Focus on how we went about sampling the public news media for articles on “genetic risk for breast cancer” 2. First, need to situate this discussion within context of current demands being placed on qualitative (health) research, and how this is at odds with hermeneutic inquiry

3. 3 i t is hardly surprising that hermeneutics should fall victim to our society’s obsession with technical procedures and formalistic organization of knowledge. Interpretation has too often been accepted by practitioners of the human sciences as merely one methodological option among a growing number of available investigative tools. For us, this view displaces the significance of the interpretive turn and ultimately empties it of its capacity to challenge the practices of knowing in our culture (Rabinow & Sullivan, 1987: 2)

4. 4 Background Qualitative research has gained legitimacy Demands for increased rigor, transparency Has increasing systematization and standardization of qualitative research gone too far?

5. 5 Turn to Procedure Value of interpretation displaced Interpretation seen as an “option”

6. 6 Hermeneutic Inquiry Methodological v Methodological v Procedural v Epistemological

7. 7 Audit Culture Renders human activity a discrete, manageable tasks “creeping managerialism” stifles radical potential of interpretive qualitative research

8. 8 Audit Culture in Health Research “evidence-based” knowledge economy – knowledge can be produced, exchanged, transferred Qualitative research as added “value”

9. 9 Purpose of Presentation To show how sampling is necessarily interpretive Emphasize methodological “messiness” Show how messiness more accurately reflects the iterative, reflective nature of interpretive research Disrupt traditional boundaries drawn b/w technical and analytic steps

10. 10 What was planned 1. Develop search criteria > field 2. Use selection criteria >pool

11. 11 The neat, tidy story 434 (field) > 89 (pool) > 63 (sample)

12. 12 The messy story 378 (field) > 434 (field) > 131 > 89 (pool) > 67 > 63 (sample)

13. 13 Epistemological Clarification “Genetic risk” not singular, discrete discourse; is a diffuse and complex discursive terrain Risk discourse is multivocal; not just statistics Public media include wide variety of articles that focus on “genetic risk”

14. 14 Creating the Discursive Field Technical Procedures Key expressions in 19 articles highlighted by 3 people > 98 key phrases Key phrases/terms clustered into 7 categories (e.g. family, genes/genetics, breast cancer, risk)

15. 15 Creating the Discursive Field Analytic Questions & Insights “Genetic risk” cuts across and connects many discursive areas, e.g. family, risk, genes, scientific research How wide do we cast our net?

16. 16 Creating the Discursive Field Technical Procedures 23 searches ran using variety of terms (and combinations of terms) within and across categories (e.g. ‘breast cancer’ and ‘gene’; ‘brca1’, ‘brca2’) Total Field = 434 articles

17. 17 Narrowing the Study Pool Analytic Questions & Insights How do we narrow the discursive field into a manageable study pool from which the study sample will be drawn?

18. 18 Narrowing the Study Pool Technical Procedures Headline review for 5 “manageable” searches (yielded > 10 and < 100 articles) Articles reviewed in full print for which decision could not be made based on headline alone Analytic Decision Start to articulate inclusion / exclusion criteria

19. 19 Narrowing the Study Pool Technical Procedures Full article review for 2 searches with most hits Analytic Decision Refine inclusion / exclusion criteria e.g. to what extent does article have to focus on breast cancer? Total (study pool) = 89 articles

20. 20 Bounding the Study Sample Technical Procedures Review articles in full text to develop initial coding framework Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria Total (study sample) = 63 articles Analytic Questions & Insights Questions raised by sampling process carried over and reflected in coding structure and discourse analysis

21. 21 Discourse Analysis Analytic Questions How are ideas about breast cancer and genetic research linked the articles? What metaphorical strategies are used? What metaphorical devices are used to describe genes? Scientists? Genetic research? How are women described? (e.g. as (potential) carriers of genes, as research subjects, as volunteers for research projects, as activists, as mothers, daughters, etc.)

22. 22 Conclusion The time seems ripe, even overdue, to announce that there is not going to be an age of paradigm in the social sciences. We contend that the failure to achieve paradigm takeoff is not merely the result of methodological immaturity but reflects something fundamental about the human world... the crisis of social science concerns the nature of social investigation itself. (Rabinow & Sullivan, 1987: 5)

23. 23

24. 24