Interpretivism
The word interpretivism is derived from the word interpretation, which means expounding or finding an explanation to an event or something. The same applies to interpretivism, which is defined by Thomas (2010), as a social research strategy that helps in expounding the meaning of social phenomena. The purpose of the paradigm was to challenge the positivist paradigm developed to solve practical problems using statistical analysis to ascertain the cause. It is crucial to understand the origin of interpretivism, which originated from the tradition of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Hermeneutics is the philosophy of understanding and interpretation and focus more on wisdom literature and biblical texts and little focus on business studies (BRM, 2016). Phenomenology is a traditional philosophy that seeks to understand the world through direct experience (Littlejohn &Foss, 2009).
From the definition of interpretivism, it is crucial to note that it dwells mostly on human interest, so researchers in the study focus more on accessing reality. The reality does not matter whether it is socially constructed or given. Interpretivism believes that reality is achieved through social construction like instruments, language, shared meaning, and consciousness. Interpretivism philosophy concentrates more on qualitative analysis than quantitative analysis. Researchers in this field reject the objective view of the phenomenon and instead appreciate the differences people possess. Therefore it is crucial to note that the philosophy employs several methods to pinpoint the different aspects surrounding an issue.
Characteristics of Interpretivism
Understanding interpretivism and how it relates to the study of politics, it is essential to know some of its characteristics. When stating the characteristics of interpretivism, it is also essential to relate the characteristics with the theoretical assumptions involved.
The first characteristic is ontology, and under this assumption, the main question is the nature of reality associated with interpretivism (Thomas, 2010). During political research, it is essential to note that the researcher and the reality are inseparable. The reason being interpretive believe that reality is socially constructed, and therefore everyone has their own reality.
The second is assumption is epistemology, where the feature is about the relationship the researcher has with the researched (Thomas, 2010). Interpretivist believe that knowledge of the world results from the person’s lived experiences and, therefore, to know what the researched know, relationships, and interaction have to be created. The relationships keep the researched at ease to divulge knowledge about their experiences in life.
The next is axiology, where the question of value comes in (Thomas, 2010). Unlike in positivism, where the researcher is value-free, in interpretivism, the research is value-laden. That means the researcher tries to get into details of what they are researching rather than just having an overview of the research.
The research in interpretivism is qualitative, and therefore small samples are chosen to be used in the study (Thomas, 2010). This comes as one of its weaknesses since the information obtained cannot be reliable. The reliability aspect is another characteristic of interpretivism where the information obtained is reliable due to the methods used in obtaining it.
The method does not rely on experiments but interpretation (Thomas, 2010). When information is interpreted, more information is obtained, and that is why when researchers meet with the subjects, the best methods to use are unstructured interviews and observation.
The research made by interpretive is used for theory building since the information’s validity is high (Thomas, 2010). The process does not involve generalization but a theoretical abstraction to get the right and verifiable information.
Interpretivism is also termed as subjective that is when faced with any challenge in research, the problem is treated with bias (Thomas, 2010). Meaning every valuable is taken and researched separately to ensure the results are more conclusive and valid.
Finally, the method used in interpretivism research is inductive (Thomas, 2010). That is, it finds more details and goes further, seeking the truth more. By inductive, it treats every individual personally and therefore wants to learn their beliefs and interest separately instead of generalizing.
Politics
When studying politics, it is essential to know the origin of the aspects associated with politics, which most can be said to be history, law, and philosophy. In these aspects, interpretation is key since this element comes with different meanings that people need to know definitely about, for example, in the case of history. The history of any country comes up in terms of events that happen in the early days. Therefore, the historians under interpretivism will seek to know how the events occurred in chronological order to make the country’s history valid. Therefore, the historians unpack the events of history by checking the beliefs and motives of the story behind the events (Bevir & Rhodes, 2002).
Under the law, it the work of lawyers to ascertain if the law is applied correctly. To ascertain this, they have to check the official nature of the institutions involved in the process of lawmaking and upholding. Therefore, their work is to look deeper into the lawmakers’ intentions to ascertain what they meant with the laws they put in place and how the laws can be followed (Bevir & Rhodes, 2002).
The final lot under politics are the philosophers who are mostly concerned with normal social life. The philosophers tend to check how others lived their social life in the past and use the same to guide the current people in living the same life or improving their lives. Philosophers tend to associate with the law in some aspects because the lives of the people in society have to be governed by some laws and regularities. Therefore despite what people feel or their beliefs are, they have to be governed by the law put in place to govern the society (Bevir & Rhodes, 2002).
Strengths of the Interpretivism Approach
Qualitative Data
In research, it is essential to have all the information required to make an assessment or a conclusion. The same applies to politics. When a decision is being made, the people need to have all the facts about the decision they are about to make since insufficient information may lead to the people’s wrong decision. One of the strengths of interpretivism is that it provided qualitative data to the people. By qualitative data, we mean the information present to the people is detailed with all the required descriptions of elements that may affect their decision. The information gives the people the reality picture happening that they may not have. Qualitative data for interpretive means information read through the lens about a specific element and then interpreted it the same time the analysis is done—therefore, deeper meaning results from qualitative data.
Subjective
Interpretivism is subjective, which means every scenario in learning about politics is scrutinized using bias and value-laden approach. This makes the information obtained to be more valuable. Some aspects of subjective are discussed to further explain the strength (Madafg, 2017). First, when learning about politics, the focus is mainly on an individual or one aspect of politics. The individual aspect or person becomes the center of the research that will provide the qualitative data. Secondly is finding the meaning of the aspect, event, or individual in detail. Being subjective means that every aspect or individual has their experience and construct that should be researched. Finally is that the results obtained from the research are interpreted using grounded theory. That means the aims of the research are used to interpret the information obtained. Therefore when interpreting the information, the theory comes after the research. Therefore the data found is used to ascertain the theory.
Building Rapport With the Participant
Building rapport with the participant is one of the strengths and advantages of interpretivism. Building rapport means creating a relationship with the participant to feel comfortable sharing their experience, values, and beliefs (Madafg, 2017). In interpretivism, this is an essential aspect considering the research method dives into the detail of the issue to understand how the person’s event or experiences occurred to aid in creating a valid opinion. The researcher is interested in getting accurate data from the participant, and for that to happen, a quality relationship should be created. When creating a quality interaction, it is always essential to accommodate the participant. Accommodation means the researcher has to introduce him/herself. Describe the research you are carrying out and how the participant can be of help. That is through interview and observation. That being the first meeting, the second one should show much interest with the participant, and subsequent meetings will create a good relationship. For the rapport to be quality, the researcher needs to remove any barriers to a successful relationship, such as distancing yourself from the participant.
Achieves Verstehen
Verstehen is the process where the researcher assumes the place of the participant to understand the participant effectively. The process of putting yourself in the shoes of the participant is what is called verstehen (Madafg, 2017). In that position, the researcher can get more information and experiences about the participant without much struggle since it becomes easy when one relates to their experience or beliefs.
Validity
Under interpretivism, the information acquired is through the process of induction. The tools used mostly are unstructured interviews and observation. Considering the sample used is also small, the information achieved is valid (Madafg, 2017). The research also goes into many details wanting to know how events occurred, what triggered the event, and when it comes to people, it is their deep beliefs and experiences. Therefore the information obtained is valid and displays the exact nature of the events.
Weaknesses of Interpretivism
Not Generalized
From interpretivism’s characteristics, we learned that the approach deals with theory abstraction and not generalization (Madafg, 2017). When dealing with specific abstract or research, they are greater chances of missing out on some aspect, making the information obtained to be unreliable. Information obtained under interpretivism, in most cases, is subjective. That is, it reflects the or is impacted by the personal beliefs of the people and viewpoints. Therefore the data collected can not be generalized since it will not reflect all people; this makes it unreliable for studies.
Not Representative
Interpretivism research is obtained from a few samples that are observed or served with unstructured interviews. The few samples used will provide information but will not represent the whole population or the order of the whole event (Madafg, 2017). Also, interpretivism concentrates on the part of an individual’s life, or some part of an invent in history. Therefore, it fails to observe the whole event or person as a whole, which is why interpretivism research results are considered unreliable.
Not Reliable
Many researchers who conduct qualitative research have concluded that the research’s reliability is not necessary as the validity. The same applies to interpretivism since the approach uses qualitative research. Therefore it is prudent to say that reliability is one of the weaknesses of interpretivism. When data is considered reliable, then it can be replicated and used in other studies. When it comes to interpretivism, the aspect of the research’s subjectivity makes the information challenging to replicate since it is marred with bias. In interpretivism, the data collected most of the time represents the people’s views, experience, and personal opinions (Madafg, 2017). The fact that the information is an abstract of the whole population makes it unreliable to be used. The other aspect is using a few samples, which makes the information unrepresentative and, therefore, unreliable.
Conclusion
Interpretivism means finding meaning or expounding more of an event or person. In studying politics, the approach has its weaknesses and strengths. Among its strengths are the validity of the data, the data’s subjectivity, qualitative data, and verstehen. The weaknesses associated with the approach are lack of generalization, not representative, and not reliable despite all the approach essential in looking for deeper experiences and events in research.
References
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. (2002). Interpretive theory. Theory and methods in political science, 1, 1.
BRM. (, 2016). Interpretivism (interpretivist) research philosophy. Research-Methodology. https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/interpretivism/
Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2009) “Encyclopedia of Communication Theory” Vol.1, SAGE Publication
Madafg. (, 2017). Interpretivists. Get Revising. https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/interpretivists
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana (Doctoral dissertation).