An interpretative approach

Given the discussion above, it should be unsurprising that I chose to undertake an interpretative study. Max Weber, whose thoughts are often associated with interpretivism suggested that ‘in the human sciences we are concerned with Verstehen (understanding)’ (Crotty, 2003: 67). More specifically, Weber maintained that ‘social phenomena […] are identified […] by their dependence on meaning and meaning conferring activity’ (Morrison, 1990: 99 – 100). It is through the actions and interactions of human beings that meaning is conferred:

Interpretative sociology considers the individual and his action as the basic unit, as its ‘atom’ […] In this approach the individual is also the upper limit and the sole carrier of meaningful conduct. (Weber, 1970: 55)

According to Weber, if we are to understand social phenomena we must ‘reduce these concepts to ‘understandable’ action, that is without exception, to the actions of participating men [sic]’ (Weber, 1970: 55). Weber has, perhaps, been so firmly associated with interpretative approaches because of his assertion that interpretation is crucial to the way in which individuals act and interact. They do not simply observe what the other person does, but instead they assign meaning to ‘each other’s acts’ (Morrison, 1990: 100) and this meaning ‘regulates what they do’ (Morrison, 1990: 100):

The 'essence' of what happens is constituted by the meaning which the two parties ascribe to their observable behaviour, a meaning which regulates the course of their future conduct. Without this meaning, we are inclined to say, an exchange is neither empirically possible nor conceptually imaginable. (Weber, 1977: 109)

Verstehen (understanding), then, ‘is the name Weber gives to the general

program in theory which attempts to capture the processes individuals use to assign meaning to their acts and the acts of others’ (Morrison, 1990: 100). This must, necessarily, be an iterative process since the meanings ascribed will be both influenced by the past, and future oriented. That is to say the

assigned meanings will be a product of our past actions and interactions (and the meanings ascribed to them); in turn, these new interpretations will influence our future actions and interactions.

My interest in the participants’ own stories meant that an interpretative approach was appropriate since it is,

… an understanding of lived experience derived from participants themselves that is important to interpretative studies. This carries its own theoretical schemata based on assumptions about the subject- person, the life-world and the validity of making sense of lived experience through participants’ stories. (Garrick, 1999: 147 – 148)

Interpretative approaches, then, are ‘characterized by a concern for the individual […] to retain the integrity of the phenomena being investigated, efforts are made to get inside the person and to understand from within’ (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011: 17). However, this notion of understanding phenomena through the experiences of participants is not a simple one. Individuals do not exist in a void, but rather their experiences are historically and culturally situated. For some researchers this is not problematic, since what is presented is an interpretation of the lived experience of the individual(s); there are no claims to an objective reality and knowledge is viewed as being socially constructed. From this perspective, getting to ‘the phenomena being investigated’ will inevitably imply getting to a

construction of the phenomena – one which is situated within particular

historical and social frameworks.

If we are to accept then, that it is possible to ‘make sense of lived experience through participants’ stories’ (Garrick, 1999: 147 – 148) and that ‘individuals’ interpretations of the world around them has to come from the inside, not the outside’ (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011: 15), how does this position the researcher? Certainly their position is very different than that of the researcher undertaking positivistic research, where a ‘good’ researcher is an ‘objective, detached value-free knower’ (Wellington, 2000: 15) in pursuit of knowledge

that is ‘deemed to be objective, value-free, generalizable and replicable’ (Wellington, 2000: 15). However, how is the interpretative researcher to ‘explain and demystify knowledge through the eyes of the participants’? (Beck, 1979 cited in Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011: 15) This seems to imply that the researcher is somehow able to leave their own social and historical context behind, and come to know the world in the same way their participants do. This is not something which I believe to be possible, or at least not something which I feel I am able to do. Therefore, I recognise that ‘the observer makes a difference to the observed’ (Wellington, 2000: 16) and that my research findings will inevitably be my own interpretation. It is important to note, however, that this is not the same as stating that I can impose any interpretation on the experiences of the participants. There must be evidence in the data for the interpretation I offer, and this must be an interpretation which makes sense to others, including the participants.

I recognise the importance of reflecting on my own preconceptions and background and considering the effect these may have on my research. I am aware that, coming into the research process, I had substantial experience of working with long-term unemployed young adults and inevitably held opinions about the area I was researching. Yet I came to realise that undertaking research with a group is very different than working with them, since I had different aims and objectives. In the role I worked in, my purpose was ultimately to support young adults to return to work or training. However, when undertaking research I wanted to find out more about the experiences of the young adults, which I found led to different types of conversations. By paying attention to these conversations I was open to new ideas and possibilities that challenged my preconceptions. Whilst recognising how important it is for the researcher to enter into a reflexive process, I did not want this to become the focus of my research. To do so, I felt, would be to distract from the ‘lived experience derived from participants themselves’ (Garrick, 1999: 147). This is not to say that the data was treated as indicating a naïve form of realism, but rather that I wanted to ‘focus on the substance of findings … so that the researcher leads the reader to an understanding of the meaning of the experience under study’ (Janesick, 2003: 215). It is the use of the words

meaning and understanding which make this claim plausible, since they indicate that it is an interpretation that is presented; one constructed collectively by the participants, the researcher and the reader.