Doing Interpretive Research

Speakers: Catherine Welch and Rebecca Piekkari

What constitutes quality interpretive research? An influential answer to this question has been provided by the ‘Gioia Methodology’. However, it is based on a very particular interpretive tradition – that of naturalism. Proponents of naturalism assume that trustworthy interpretation amounts to the faithful reporting of what informants say, systematic procedures of data management and theoretical abstraction of the coding of interview transcripts. These procedures ensure a tight correspondence is maintained between what interviewees say and the abstract themes that the researcher then proposes.

But there is another alternative open to interpretive researchers that we will explore in this webinar: reconnecting with the hermeneutic tradition. The hermeneutic tradition challenges the researcher to question the clues from the field, rather than take them at face value. Even if informants are candid and open, researchers can only begin to understand their responses by placing them into their broader social webs of meaning. Moreover, researchers influence the informants’ answers, meaning that there is no such thing as ‘raw data’ – data are always ‘cooked’.

How then do we reconnect with the hermeneutic tradition? Doing so does not mean following a ‘template’, or prescribed set of steps. Rather, hermeneutic research can be guided by heuristics: thought patterns and probing questions that assist the interpretive process. In this webinar, we will discuss these key heuristics that can guide the research process, and how they change our understanding of ‘first-order’ and ‘second-order’ concepts in interpretive research.

Recommended reading:
• Gioia, D., Corley, K., Eisenhardt, K., Feldman, M., Langley, A., Lê, J., ... & Welch, C. (2022). A curated debate: On using “templates” in qualitative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(3), 231–252.
• Mees-Buss, J., Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2022). From templates to heuristics: How and why to move beyond the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 405-429.
• Schaefer, S. M., & Alvesson, M. (2020), ‘Epistemic attitudes and source critique in qualitative research’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(1), 33-45.
• Silverman, D. (2017), ‘How was it for you? The interview society and the irresistible rise of the (poorly analysed) interview’, Qualitative Research, 17(2): 144-158
• Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539-550.