A Beginners Guide to Qualitative/Interpretive Research and Analysis

Interpretive approaches to research try to understand better ‘the world’ as lived by the people in it. This is sometimes described as trying to grasp the “meaning” or “meanings” of research participants’ thinking and behaviour. This emphasis on personal meanings reflects a belief in social constructionism. Social constructionism is associated with the denial that there is an independent reality that we can explore ‘out there’. Instead, as researchers, we can only explore the realities of individuals as they experience the world, drawing on others’ interpretations and developed in context. Interpretivism also holds that human beings are purposive – they will consider and analyse what it is they do. Obviously, then, they will also make judgements about what it is they will say and to whom. In other words, asking for someone’s understandings or views will not necessary result in them telling you!

The search for others’ meanings explains, in part, why researchers within this paradigm will try to use methods which are non-interventionist. Many would argue, however, that all research is an intervention. However, there is an emphasis on trying to understand people and actions in ‘natural’ settings. This is why some authors call interpretive inquiry “naturalistic inquiry.” The unstructured interview is often employed because it allows research participants to lead the conversation. This method hopefully allows research participants to identify what they see as significant and to tell stories in ways they want to tell them.

Language is key to these processes, so researchers working in this way will usually try to tape record their interviews. These will then be transcribed. Alternatively, researchers will try to take down as much detail as possible if they are taking notes. Social constructionism also emphasises that language itself is not a transparent representational medium. It is said that people “do things with words”, and researchers ideally work with the actual words people have used, not some approximation of them. One of the things people ‘do’ with words is try to make sense of their experience, as they describe it. It is a good idea to try to transcribe every word of a taped interview because you will not know what is relevant until you are analysing the data and writing your account.

Trying to understand better someone else’s understandings of the world as an aim for research, also explains why researchers within this sort of paradigm will combine methods. Researchers will conduct observations and interviews, for example. They will use their observations to inform their interviews and consider the sorts of contradictions that become evident between what people do and what people say they do. Interpretive research thrives on this sort of contradiction, rather than thinking that it is a failure of method.

It is also the case, of course, that researchers are in the same position as research participants in that we are also continually making interpretations in order to proceed in the world, in general, and in our research, in particular. Every time we respond to a particular comment in a particular way, every time we write down observations of things that aren’t measurable, and every time we try to develop an account from our data, we are making interpretations. In addition, because our research involves face-to-face contact with people, the research itself is bound to have an effect on the sorts of sense-making processes both the research participants and we, as researchers, are engaging in. In other words, there is an interactional element as well. De Sola Pool described interviews as “an interpersonal drama with a developing plot.”

Acknowledging the interactional element of research processes means we must also acknowledge the sense-making processes that are going on as we do our research. For example, we may raise issues in interviews that people haven’t considered before, or haven’t considered ‘out loud’ before. In such cases we are not uncovering some ready-made ‘truth’ but, rather, something that is being ‘worked on’ as interviewees speak. Not only do participants develop meanings as the research proceeds, but may also change as a consequence of the research. This means that they will not be entirely the same person the next time you meet them. This makes ‘checking’ our analysis to see whether we have ‘got it right’ or not is more problematic that it at first appears.

The fact that we are part of the scene we’re researching, and that our values will inevitably come into play in the interpretive process, means that interpretive work should also include a reflexive element. An important aim of reflexivity is a form of self-critique. This involves trying to look at and analyse oneself in terms of the values, beliefs, assumptions and so on that are evident in our research and which will have an effect on it. In making these analyses as we proceed, we hopefully proceed more knowingly, more analytically. This means asking yourself questions like ‘What patterns can I see in the questions I ask? How could I ask different sorts of questions?” “Why do I avoid certain topics in interviews or talking to certain people? What does that tell me about my own feelings about the research? How can I try to explore things I find difficult?” “What does the sort of language I employ suggest about my values? Can I try to employ a different language and see if that affects people’s responses to me?” This sort of practice helps to underline the fact that interpretive research is subjective; reflexivity, then, is one way of trying to learn from the particular subjectivities involved. Some people would say that ‘practising’ reflexivity is a way of increasing objectivity.

Another important element of reflexivity that may be relevant to partnership research is “positioning”, that is, researchers stating their position (epistemologically, methodologically, politically – all connected of course) in relation to the research. This is sometimes known as stating one’s “standpoint epistemology”. This is further acknowledgement of the fact that there is no such thing as neutral, objective knowledge; rather, all accounts are situated and partial. Standpoint epistemology has the important aim of foregrounding the politics of (all) research and aims to provoke critical reflection on texts by acknowledging their partial nature. It is also suggested that such statements help readers situate the account, in terms of ‘reading’ it according to the politics of the author(s). This is also regarded as likely to encourage critical reflection on the account.

You may want to keep a research diary to assist in your efforts to be reflexive. Here you can write about thoughts, feelings, interpretations of what is going on – for your eyes only. If you manage to keep such a diary consistently, it will form a fascinating record of how you have changed over the period of the research and this, in itself, can form incredibly useful data in the course of your work.

Reflexivity is one means through which we might critically review our research as it proceeds. Interpretive researchers also try to do data analysis in an on-going way throughout a project rather than only as an ‘end point’ (see What is Qualitative Data Analysis - Starting Points). This is described as taking a “situated” approach to research. Research plans which describe an interpretive approach should therefore acknowledge that there will be points at which plans will be reviewed and, probably, modified.