Interpretativism - Researcher Education Programme
Download
Report
Transcript Interpretativism - Researcher Education Programme
Interpretivism:
[email protected]
The research problem
Impact of Information Technology on gambling behaviour
Under-researched phenomena (minimal knowledge of
hypotheses or even core variables)
Through explorative studies build a substantive
understanding of phenomena
Grounded Theory produced theoretical framework to
shape investigation
Empirical Testing of Hypotheses
The research problem
Observed:
1.
Pariticipants have increased gambling participation
since availability of online gambling
Participants believed through manipulation of IT
processes that profitable control in gambling was
possible
Participants stated the primary objective of online
gambling was profit accumulation
Significant proportion of online gamblers actively
attempted to achieve profitable control via IT
Profit accumulated was positively correlated with
engagement in IT processes (multiple samples)
2.
3.
4.
5.
The research problem
Theoretical Limitations:
Dots appeared to connect (at face value at least)
Do the participants make the same connection (i.e. is
gambling an economically motivated activity)
The theory lacked depth (using outcome to explain
behaviour)
Wanted to know:
How has their understanding of
gambling changed in response to
these changes?
Needed an epistemology that could
provide such ‘knowledge’
Interpretivism
Not a specific epistemology, rather a loose category
In general, takes a position that is non-positivist (not
necessarily anti-positivist)
Difference in subject matter is profound
Natural Reality versus Social Reality
Emphasis is on Empathic Understanding rather than
External Explanation
Interpretivism
‘The world of nature as explored by the
natural scientist does not mean anything
to the molecules, atoms and electrons.
But the field of the social scientist – Social
Reality – has a specific meaning and
relevance for the beings living, acting and
thinking within it.’ (Schutz, 1962)
Interpreted Social Reality
What is a good community to you?
Verstehen
Sociology Philosopher Max Weber (preceding
modern social science)
Antipositivist approach to social action (sociological
positivism & economic determinism are limited)
Against the emphasis of ‘impersonal’ external factors
explaining action
Verstehen – systematic process of outsider observing a
culture, attempting to ‘relate’
Criticism – Can an outsider ever ‘understand’ another
participant/culture?
Epistemologies of Interpretivism
Symbolic Interactionism –
Understanding social behaviour by focusing
on practices
Interaction with reality is MEDIATED by the process of
‘making sense’ - performed through social interaction
We then act on such interpretations
‘Meaning’ is not static but changed iteratively through
experience
Meaning of ‘father’ changes with experience, and this
change affects action
Epistemologies of Interpretivism
Phenomenology
Understanding ‘social reality’ must be grounded in
people’s experiences of that reality
Prevailing understanding/knowledge must be
forgotten, and the phenomena experienced ‘anew’
(bracketing off)
Accessing subjective experience: exploration of
personal experience to understand reality
External logic vs Internal logic of participant (not
group level but individual logic)
Epistemologies of Interpretivism
Hermeneutics
Social reality is socially constructed and not routed in
objective fact
Argue that interpretation should be given more weight
than explanation and description
Social Reality is too complex to understand through
observation alone
Ricoeur (1970) 2 forms of hermeneutics
1)
Meaning-recollection – to inform and confirm
2)
Hermeneutics of Suspicion – looking past superficial
layer
Models separation between Phenomenology and
Hermeneutics
Epistemologies of Interpretivism: Progression
Common thread of antipathy of positivism in
understanding social action
Interpretivist research enables unanticipated findings
Modern Interpretivist aware of limitation of
‘understanding’ (i.e. double hermeneutic)
Triple Hermeneutic?
Interpret findings in relation to
existing theoretical framework
Knowledge is filtered
Real differences Vs. Positivism?
Probably more shallow than deep (choice of research
method)
Assumptions of Positivism (from Interpretivist approach)
are misguided
Use of arcane language in Interpretivism impedes
understanding?
Shared goal of improving knowledge of phenomena
Becomes about strategic method selection to ascertain
specific type of knowledge