INTERPRETIVISM

Interpretivism is a methodological approach that differs from positivism in that it

examines the individual interpretations that people have about their social behaviors. It is based
upon trying to understand the meaning people give and the motivations people have to act in
specific manner in different context rather than developing a formula of understanding the
society as positivist attempt to do. Interpretivist, it’s focus is on trying to gain an insight into the
unique experiences of individuals and groups rather than approaching social issues objectively.
Interpretivist suggests that researchers need to develop empathy or as Webber stated
VERSTEHEN with the subject of the research in order to better understand the social location of
these people. Verstehen also means putting yourself on the shoes of other.
One of the key ideas of interpretivism is that societies constructed individuals under the
decisions and behaviors of these individuals is then shape social institution such as education,
family, religion and media. Society is constructed of individuals who have free will. While
positivism focuses on structural explanations and tries to develop a one size fits all approach,
interpretivism looks at micro sociology. The meanings that individuals prescribe to events rather
than society’s meta narrative. Interpretivist also favored qualitative data but is more subjective
because individuals will have their own opinions on events. Finally, interpretivism suggests that
due to individuals having free will and being able to act differently. All within the confines of
social structures that humans cannot be studied scientifically but simply different people will
react in different ways.
Interpretivist prefer more qualitative methods of research that positivist. Methods such as
observations either participants or to a lesser extent, non participant give them a first account of
human behaviors. Participants observations also allow researchers to experience the activity of
the group which heightens their understanding of the group’s experience. Secondary sources
such as personal, historical documents also give a great insight into lives of others. While the use
of surveys focuses on gathering written and verbal accounts of meaning and motivations through
open ended questionnaires and unstructured interviews that allow those being researched the
voice.
Interpretivist methods have certain strengths. They are higher in validity than positivist
methods as they probe deeper than the surface of social facts that positivists prefer. They uncover
the meanings and motivations of people’s actions whether this is observed verbally or in writing.
They produce qualitative data which helps researchers to uncover hidden meanings they may not
have understood. Typically, researchers are more likely to come from middle class backgrounds
and by utilizing qualitative data. They have the ability to understand the views of those outside
of their social class or ethic group. Furthermore, they champion the underdog in society.
Providing a voice to those that often go neglected in other forms of research in the media. And
finally, they can gain an insight into hard to reach groups. As interpretivist research into deviant
subcultures and feminist research into lives of women who are abused and oppressed has
demonstrated.
Of course there are limitations to use an interpretivist methodology. They’re difficult to
replicate. Particularly methods such as participant observations and unstructured interviews
which means they can lack reliability. Critics will also suggest that too often, the researcher can
have too much of an influence in the research. Interpreting actions that will fit in with their
theoretical position or the aims of their research. Example of these are leading questions or over
recording of behaviors that fit in with their hypothesis. Rejecting secondary sources that
contradict their findings are possible when used interpretivist methods. A further limitation is
that due to the in depth nature, the research tends to be small scale and focused on groups that
may be seen as atypical. Therefore, it’s difficult to generalize interpretivist research to the wider
population. Finally, their approach is seen as being unscientific particularly by the scientific
community as it is not able to be falsified. This means it’s often rejected for the purpose of its
decision and policy making. However, interpretivist would suggest that sociologists should be
independent of government and that the role of sociology is to act as a commentary on society.
Some examples of interpretivist research qfrom across the specification are Willis –
Learning to Labor which utilized a range of interpretivist method to investigate the experience of
education that working class boys had. Learning to labor is Willis first major book. It relates to
his findings of his ethnographic study of working class boys at a secondary school in England.
Willis attempts to explain the role of youths’ culture and socialization as mediums by which
schools route working-class students into working class jobs.
Jacque Young’s research into deviancy amplification looked at the process of labeling
and cracking down on marijuana users in Notting Hill which is The Drugtakers : Social meaning
of drug use. Which lead to further deviance and a range of sociologists have utilized
interpretivist methodologies in education.
Fuller, Archer, Mac and Guile to name but few examining the impacts of education and
different social groups.

Interpretivist approach deals mainly on the experiences of individuals and on how the
researchers interpret experiences of individuals. It is directly related to qualitative research. It
encourages researchers to empathize or put on the shoes of their research participants.