|
Interpretation & Method
A discussion group in political and other social science
This web site provides a forum for the discussion of method and methodology related to interpretive research. We envision the discussion as ranging from the practical to the philosophical, including asking one another for advice on specific methods, working on strategies for effectively developing and conducting interpretive work, exploring outlets for presentation and publication, discussing examples of interpretive work in the social sciences, and debating issues in the philosophy of (social) science.
Interpretive methods are informed, explicitly or implicitly, by presuppositions deriving from phenomenology, hermeneutics, and some critical theory. Their concerns often overlap with such other approaches as feminist theories, critical race theory, and critical legal studies. Although diverse in their modes of accessing and analyzing data, research processes in the interpretive tradition are united by an empirical and normative prioritizing of the lived experience of people in research settings (what the anthropologist Clifford Geertz referred to as “experience-near” research, also known as “emic” research).
Interpretive scholars:
i) study human meaning as embodied in action, text, and/or physical artifacts;
ii) pay particular attention to the way that meaning is shaped and contested within particular contexts of practice, including intersubjective interaction;
iii) are self-reflexive as to the way in which their own concepts and concerns shape the accounts that they produce;
iv) pursue ends other than the establishment of "laws" or the generation/testing of "empirical" or "positive" theory.
The emphasis on the primacy of context is often neglected by other methodological frameworks commonly employed by political scientists. Where such frameworks often privilege the development of causal inferences that are generalizable across both time and space, interpretive research prioritizes the “lifeworld” of local actors and the discursive, organizational, and material practices that at once constitute and are constituted by these actors. At both the empirical and normative level, then, interpretive research might be distinguished from other methodological approaches in its decentering of expertise on the part of the researcher.
Within these parameters there is much diversity and debate. Interpretive scholars diverge with respect to the ends they do pursue: they may be practical or contemplative, they may seek to educate morally or not, they may be concerned with the pursuit of the particular or a grand sweeping synthesis, and so on. For some the legitimation of local knowledge constitutes a radically democratic position; for some the work requires a commitment to individual human agency; and for yet others it serves to challenge the modern constitution of the subject. We look forward here to these and other discussions.
An important motivation behind this web site arises out of the need to make space for interpretive methodology as a legitimate approach within US political science. All political scientists share a desire to see, understand, and explain the social world. We contend that the systematic inclusion of interpretive approaches (in graduate curricula, disciplinary journals, research funding programs, and so on) carries enormous potential to enliven and enrich our discipline’s current ways of seeing, understanding, and explaining. It is hoped that the work reviewed and showcased on this site offers a taste of just how much political science stands to gain from the wider inclusion of interpretive approaches.
Some of the interesting interpretive work being done today originates outside the field of political science, but there are also longstanding interpretive traditions within it. We look forward to a constructive dialogue among political scientists interested in interpretive work, whether academics or practitioners in policy analysis and other arenas, and to being joined by our colleagues in anthropology, sociology, geography, and other fields. We extend a warm welcome to all who find this page, regardless of their disciplinary home.
Advisory Group:
*Robert Adcock, George Washington University, Political Science (Political Theory, Qualitative Methods)
* Tim Luke, Virginia Tech, Political Science (Political Theory, Environmental
Politics, International Relations)
*Ido Oren, Florida, Political Science (International Relations)
*Tim Pachirat, New School, Political Science and International Relations
*Peri Schwartz-Shea, Utah, Political Science (American Government, Public Administration)
*Joe Soss, Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey School (Public Policy, Race and Ethnicity, Mass Politics)
*Dvora Yanow, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (Public Policy, Organizational Studies, Interpretive Methods)
To see the collection of prior postings to the list,
visit the Interpretationandmethods
Archives.
|
