Interpretative social sciences Paradigm

The interpretative social sciences paradigm has its foundations in Max Weber’s notion of ‘empathetic understanding’ (Jennings, 2010). Central to this notion is the concept of appreciative accuracy, in which the researcher is able to adequately grasp and accurately convey the emotional context in which the action took place. However, it could also be argued that the interpretative social sciences paradigm has also been shaped by the sociological writings of Blumer (1956), in which the process of interpretation is argued to

be of central importance when analysing social settings. The following quote helps to clarify the centrality of interpretation to human understanding:

We can, and I think must, look upon human life as chiefly a vast interpretative process in which people, singularly and collectively, guide themselves by defining the objects, events, and situations which they encounter…Any scheme designed to analyse human group life in its general character has to fit this process of interpretation (Blumer, 1956: 686).

From these Weberian and Blumerian foundations we can see the emergence of a number of defining characteristics associated with the interpretative social sciences paradigm. These characteristics are identified by several authors (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Jennings, 2001; 2010) as having an ontological (what is the nature of reality?),

epistemological (what is the nature between the researcher and subject?), methodological (how should the researcher gather knowledge?), and axiological (how is knowledge

valued?) basis. These characteristics are discussed below.

Ontological Basis

From an ontological perspective, the interpretative social sciences paradigm asserts there are multiple explanations or realities to explain a phenomenon (Jennings, 2010: 40). The presence of these multiple explanations or realities is described by Denzin and Lincoln (2005: 24) as a ‘relativist ontology’. Any one of a range of multiple realities is not more or less ‘true’ in an absolute sense but simply more or less informed and/or sophisticated (Guba & Lincoln, 1998). Importantly these realities and their construction can change over time. As noted by Zahra (2006), this relativism can lead to conflicting social realities not only between researcher and informant but also for the individual researcher if his or her constructs change as he or she gets more informed and experienced over time. Consequently the researcher must assume an inductive approach to research in which explanations of phenomena are used as the basis for theory building and generation.

The researcher’s task when building or generating theory is to understand what is happening within a given situation, and relies on building interpretation of practice through engaging with and comparing multiple sources of data (Murray, 2006). From

these multiple sources of data emerge patterns and relationships, and it is this emergent nature which forms the basis of the development of grounded theory. It does not test a hypothesis but seeks to discover the theory implicit within the data (Murray, 2006). This doctoral research utilises an inductive approach to research in order to develop grounded theory regarding the changing role of local government in tourism development in the Hurunui District.

Epistemological Basis

The epistemological basis of the interpretative social sciences paradigm is one in which the relationship between the researcher and subject is ‘inter-subjective’ (Jennings, 2010: 41) rather than objective. This is because the researcher is obliged to enter the social setting and become one of the social actors in that setting. As such this paradigm assumes a subjective epistemology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005: 24) in which the researcher and

subject co-create understandings. Clearly, then, the relationship between researcher and subject(s) is the epistemological question.

Conventionally the interpretative researcher needs to avoid imposing the researcher’s viewpoint. The researcher in the interpretative paradigm needs to understand the social world as it is, at the level of subjective experience. It seeks an explanation within the frame of reference of participant as opposed to the observer of action. The researcher or investigator and the ‘object’ investigated are assumed to be interactively linked (Zahra, 2006), thus occupying a state of ‘inter-subjectivity’ as noted above. This inter-subjectivity of researcher and subject(s), in turn, can create challenges associated with the ability of the researcher to relate to the subjective experience of all the individuals involved in this research. This can be problematic when investigating a range of often conflicting views and perspectives, as is the case with this doctoral research, and requires the researcher to be mindful of the contextual subjectivity associated with each individual subject/

informant/ interviewee.

Methodological Basis

According to Zahra (2006: 27), the objective of the social sciences interpretative paradigm is to examine the subjective world of human experience, thereby retaining the integrity of

the phenomena being investigated. To achieve this, the researcher needs to get inside and understand from within. Thus from a methodological perspective the interpretative social sciences paradigm utilises qualitative research methods to gather knowledge from the empirical world. This preference for qualitative research methods is noted by

numerous authors within the academic literature (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Jennings, 2001, 2010; Zahra, 2006). A researcher operating within this paradigm seeks to

understand phenomena from an insider’s perspective (Jennings, 2010), and as such represents an emic perspective (Fetterman, 1989). Since the views of all social actors are considered, exceptions are included rather than discounted as is often the case with a positivist paradigm. In fact it is often these ‘exceptions’ which help to develop insights into how and why a specific phenomenon occurred within the research setting.

As noted above, the researcher undertakes an inductive approach to his or her research by getting involved with the data or the participants in order to develop explanations for the phenomena. These generalisations, according to Locke (2001), are used as the basis for theory-building and generation. The variable and personal nature of these theories and the social constructions of the researcher can only be elicited and refined through interaction between and among the investigator and respondents (Guba & Lincoln, 1998). The range of methods of empirical material collection typically utilised within the social sciences interpretative paradigm include, for example: participant observation, in-depth interviews, and case studies. All three of these data gathering methods are utilised in this research.

Axiological Basis

Finally, the axiological basis of the interpretative social sciences paradigm is centred on the value of propositional knowledge which is transactional and has instrumental values linked to social change and emancipation (Jennings, 2010: 41). According to Guba and Lincoln (2005), both are end points in themselves as well as being intrinsically valuable. The significance of these values is acknowledged by Jennings (2010) as being integral to research processes since research is a social process. Thus the researcher is subjectively involved in knowledge-making, relating again to the interpretative social sciences epistemological stance. The interpretative paradigm questions the axiology of the

positivists and claims that human values intrude on the research process. The frame of reference and values of the researcher is increasingly seen as an active force that determines the way that knowledge is obtained (Zahra, 2006: 26). It should be acknowledged that the values or biases of the researcher inevitably influence the

questions asked and the conclusions drawn within the research process. This inevitability of researcher subjectivity is noted by Locke (2001), who argues that the examination of the values of the researcher on the research process is an example of reflexivity,

reflecting on the assumptions that are made when researchers produce what they regard as knowledge.

As noted above, one way in which the researcher’s values can set the direction of the research is by the perspective through which the researcher views certain phenomena. In relation to tourism policy-making, this research adopted a New Regionalism perspective. From this standpoint, the institutional structures and dynamics of social interactions were believed to have an implicit influence on the Hurunui District’s capacity to undertake ‘regional’ tourism planning and development. In short, regional tourism development outcomes are the result of the interactions between those stakeholders charged with making decisions, and the political and institutional framework that determines how these interactions take place. Within the policy-making process, the researcher adopted a Foucauldian view of power and politics, whereby tourism development and promotion outcomes are conceptualised as being shaped by the power struggles between competing interests.

By combining the New Regionalism and Foucauldian perspectives of policy-making, a clear insight is provided into how the researcher interprets (i.e., views through the

theoretical ‘lens’) tourism development and promotion in the Hurunui District. In the case study location, tourism policy is developed by those stakeholders engaged in the decision- making process under neoliberal-inspired public policy ideologies. This policy paradigm, as well as other government policies and legislation, provides the ‘rules’ that govern how these stakeholders interact and make decisions. Outcomes from the process are believed to be products of these stakeholder interactions, which are (partially) shaped by the political and institutional framework in which they operate.