INTEPRETIVISM AS THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

The study is strongly considered a qualitative one and based on Creswell’s (2007) suggestion that in carrying out a qualitative study researchers should attempt creating as close a rapport as possible with the people being studied, this researcher has had a close

interaction with the social world in order to make sense of the situation under study. Against this backdrop and from earlier arguments positivism cannot be an appropriate tool for this study and steps have further been taken to explain this.

Interpretivism looks for culturally derived and historically situated interpretation of the social reality (world) (Crotty 1998); individuals try to comprehend social reality or the world in which they are (Creswell 2007). It argues there is no objective truth out there and that meaning is non-existent but created by subject’s interaction with the world or in researcher’s interaction with the researched (Creswell 2007; Crotty 1998). It suggests further that no objective knowledge is independent of thinking and that reality is viewed as socially and societally embedded and existing within the mind (Grbich 2007). In explaining the emergence of interpretivism as a school of thought challenging the dominance of discourse by positivism, Bryman (2004: 12) states:

Interpretivism is predicated upon the view that a strategy is required that respects the differences between people and the objects of the natural sciences, this means that social scientists need to grasp the subjective meaning of social action.

Bryman (2004) postulates that proponents of this school have argued that the study of social world needs a logic of research processes that differentiates humans from the natural order. Reality is fluid and changing and knowledge is constructed jointly in interaction between the researcher and the researched through consensus. Knowledge, thus, is subjective, constructed and is based on the shared signs and symbols that are recognised by members of a common culture. And that multiple realities are presumed with different people experiencing them differently. To make sense of a situation, therefore, a researcher needs to place themselves in the research, with their own peculiar experience

and background shaping the interpretation of their findings (Creswell 2007). Interpretivism is, thus, sub-divided into five major traditions, namely: symbolic interactionism; phenomenology; realism; hermeneutics; and naturalistic inquiry. Each shall be briefly explained.

3.2.1 Symbolic Interactionism

This tradition of interpretivism emerged from the works of social psychologists like George H Mead (Flick 2009) and John Dewey who were frustrated with the irregularities of contemporary philosophies and social sciences (Gray 2004). The aim of this perspective is to draw from human interaction with the world meanings and interpretations (Davies 2007). It emphasises people’s objectives and actions in the world and then acts upon interpretation, that is meaning arises from the process of social interaction. Meaning, according to this school, is not fixed and is revised on the basis of experience like self or who we are. Researchers try to understand the process by studying the subject’s actions, objects and society from the perspective of the subject themselves. This entails going to the field to observe either by means of ethnography or participative observation (Gray 2004: 21). Bryman (2004) has also discussed symbolic interactionism as a tradition that explains the development of our notion of self by appreciating how others see us. Despite its influence as an interpretative tradition it has drawn a lot of controversy regarding Mead’s concepts and ideas that are seen to be consistent with natural sciences (McPhail & Rexroat 1979; cited in Bryman 2004). Symbolic interactionism contends that interaction occurs in a manner that the individual is consistently interpreting the symbolic meaning of his or her environment (including others’ actions) and acts on the basis of imputed meaning (Bryman 2004; Davies 2004).

3.2.2 Phenomenology

Phenomenology has been described as an intellectual tradition within interpretivism that is concerned with the question of how individuals make a sense of the world around them and how in particular the philosopher should bracket out preconditions in his or her grasp of that world (Bryman 2004: 13). Grbich (2007) adds that phenomenology attempts to understand the social reality or people’s experience of social reality. It argues that a new meaning emerges if we set aside our understanding of a phenomenon and revisit our immediate experience (Gray 2004). Phenomena are understood on their own merit and our perception of them does not taint them. It is an exploratory research through personal experience and tends to avoid the researcher’s bias. Phenomenology is different from ethnography in that it is based on human experiences of the lived world, which uses the individual as unit of analysis and based almost entirely on interviews (Tesch 1994; Gray 2004; Grbich 2007). Bryman (2004: 13-14) explains that phenomenology started from the work of German philosopher Alfred Schutz (1899-1959) who has argued that:

The world of nature as explored by the natural scientist does not mean anything to molecules, atoms and electrons. But the observational field of the social scientist – social reality – has a specific meaning and relevance structure for the beings living, acting and thinking within it.

Unlike the belief by natural scientists that objective truth exists and can be discovered by means of empirical observation, Shutz’s postulation in the above quote suggests that reality is actually a product of joint construction during interaction between the researcher and the researched. Thus, meaning arises as the researcher gets as close as possible to the phenomenon, observers, understands and interprets it through the voice of the researched.

3.2.3 Realism

Realism is another tradition under interpretivism and it supports natural sciences (Bryman 2004; Grbich 2007) as it argues that the picture they paint is true and accurate (Chia 2002; cited in Gray 2004: 17). It argues further that cultural, organisational and corporate planning exists independent of the observers. Knowledge, it says, is advanced through the process of theory-building and discovery adds to knowledge. It adds that while some observable facts may be mere illusions, some phenomena can’t be observed but it admits they do exist. Flick (2009: 69) also explains that both realism and positivism advocate the use of similar principles by natural and social sciences to collect and analyse data and that they assume there is a world that is external (external reality) or separate from what is described (Bryman 2004).

3.2.4 Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics (also known as hermeneutic-phenomenology) argues that social reality is not rooted in objective facts but socially constructed. It gives more primacy to interpretation than explanation and description (Gray 2004). Hermeneutic phenomenological approach involves finding meanings of social action by actors who interpret from their own point of view (Bryman 2004; Grbich 2007) and that, like other strands of interpretivism, it rejects positivism.

3.2.5 Naturalistic Inquiry

Naturalistic inquiry believes that multiple constructed realities should be studied only holistically (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Gray 2004). It says that a phenomenon is understood only within its setting or environment.

Of the five interpretivism traditions explained this researcher is adopting phenomenology because the researcher finds it most suitable for the study. Particularly, given that phenomenology is an exploratory research through personal experience and tends to avoid the researcher’s bias (Grbich 2007). This researcher intends revisiting a previous experience, while setting aside a personal bias of the experience, and hopes to make a sense of the phenomenon through the interpretation of other people’s experience with similar phenomena. Adopting this option of interpretative perspective, which means a researcher taking a position from outside the particular social situation under study enables the researcher to discover surprising findings or those that may seem surprising (Bryman 2004: 15). Phenomenology, as Gray (2004) suggests, uses the individual as a unit of analysis and based mainly on interviews. The individuals in this case are journalists, including reporters and editors, and their readers or audience. Attempts have been made by the researcher to do an exploratory study of their reportage, the situation in which they work/report and how it impacts on the audience. In this way the researcher also seeks to understand the perception of news and news reporting amongst the audience and the perception of audience reception of news amongst the journalists responsible for producing and selling news to the audience. In the next section of this chapter this researcher tries to explain how phenomenology affects the choice of the research design and research methodologies that would lead to the successful completion of the study.