Interpretivism and Phenomenology
The source defines the interpretive position in one line and then hangs six traditions off it without defining any of them. Here is what the definition supports, what the six labels do and do not give you, and how an interpretive design behaves in a project setting.
The interpretive position as the source states it
The active words are provide and explanations. The participant is not a measurement site returning a value; the participant is the one doing the explaining, and their explanation is the data. Your analysis interprets those explanations — hence the name — rather than replacing them with your own.
That has an immediate consequence for how you write findings. An interpretive finding sounds like site supervisors explained the schedule slippage as a consequence of late design information, not late design information caused schedule slippage. The second sentence has quietly promoted an account into a cause.
Six associated traditions, and how far the source takes them
THE SIX ASSOCIATED TERMS AND THEIR STATUS IN THE SUPPLIED SOURCE
| Associated term | Definition in the source | Where else it appears in the material |
|---|---|---|
| Phenomenology | Label only | Named as the methodology of one design in the exemplar volume, described there as a qualitative phenomenological methodology |
| Ethnography | Label only | Also listed as a research methodology in the middle tier of the methodological pyramid |
| Phenomenography | Label only | Appears once, here |
| Symbolic interaction | Label only | Also listed in the prose as one of the other philosophical frameworks used in social science research, as symbolic interactionism |
| Intersubjectivity | Label only | Appears once, here |
| Subjectivist | Label only | Appears once, here |
Column two records what the supplied teaching source contains. It is not a judgement about whether the tradition is well defined in the wider literature.
Phenomenology: what this page will not tell you
Phenomenology carries the most weight of the six, because it is the one that turns up in practice. It sits first in the associated-terms list, and one design in the exemplar volume states that its data were analysed using a qualitative phenomenological methodology.
That is the extent of what the supplied material provides. There is no definition of phenomenology in it, no account of what a phenomenological analysis involves, and no statement of how it differs from other interpretive approaches. This page therefore does not define it either.
What an interpretive study does differently
The design consequences are mostly about sequence and access. A positivist instrument is finished before fieldwork opens; an interpretive instrument is still learning while fieldwork runs.
- Before accessEstablish who can give a first-hand account of the situation, and what permission you need to reach them. Access, not sample size, is the binding constraint.
- Opening fieldworkBroad questions that let the participant set the terms. You are learning the vocabulary of the setting, including the words that mean something different here than elsewhere.
- Mid-fieldworkRefine the questions as accounts accumulate. The source explicitly describes the research process as ever-changing rather than a fixed set of steps, and this is where that shows.
- AnalysisWork in the participants' categories first, and only then relate them to the literature. Findings are built from accounts, not fitted to a prior frame.
- Writing upQuote enough that a reader can see the account behind your interpretation, and say where your reading of it could reasonably differ.
This is why interpretive work is expensive in a delivery environment. The source's guidance on allocating time — plan half for doing the research and half for writing and rewriting — bites hardest here, because transcription and analysis of accounts consume more of the second half than a dataset does. Design considerations are set out at designing your research.
Data that satisfies an interpretive reader
What a reviewer looks for
- First-hand accounts from people who were actually in the situation being explained
- Enough of each account retained that the explanation is the participant's and not your paraphrase
- Coverage of the roles that would explain the same situation differently
- A record of how the questions changed during fieldwork, and why
- An explicit statement of your own relationship to the setting, since the source defines epistemology in one of its tables as the relationship between researcher and topic
- Evidence you have kept and can produce — transcripts, field notes, dated drafts
In the source's terms this is primary data: directly observed or gathered by the researcher, described there as relevant, timely and reliable. Where you also read policies, minutes or incident reports, you are working with secondary data interpreted by others, and the distinction should be visible in your write-up. See primary and secondary data sources and data collection methods.
Worked example: a fly-in, fly-out workforce study
One design in the exemplar volume of master's project management research addressed management challenges associated with a fly-in, fly-out workforce. It was exploratory, it interviewed 31 current fly-in, fly-out workers, and it analysed the data using a qualitative phenomenological methodology.
What that design can report is how those workers explain the pressures of the roster and what they attribute them to. What it cannot report is how many workers across the industry hold those views, or that the roster causes a measured outcome. Both of those would need a different design, and probably a different position. More designs from the same volume are collected at seventeen worked research designs.
The claim boundary
Is the interpretive position the right one to declare?
Where interpretive studies go wrong in project settings
What to carry forward
- The interpretive position rests on participants providing their own accounts or explanations — the account is the evidence.
- The six associated traditions are labels in this source, not definitions. Naming one commits you to citing a text that defines it.
- Phenomenology is the label most often claimed and least often earned; describe your actual analysis if you cannot cite a variant.
- Access and analysis time, not sample size, are the constraints that decide whether an interpretive design is feasible.
- The claim you end with is an explanation held by described participants in a described setting — never a prevalence figure.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between interpretivism and constructivism in this source?
The definitions differ in their object: the constructivist entry is about people constructing their own views of reality, and the interpretive entry is about people providing their own accounts or explanations of situations and behaviours. The source places both in the same table and never states how to choose between them, so if your document draws a sharp line you will need a methods text that draws it.
Can I say my study is phenomenological if I interviewed people about their experience?
Not on the strength of the interviews alone. Phenomenology names a way of analysing accounts, and the supplied teaching source defines neither the term nor the procedure. Either cite a methods text, name the variant you followed and show your analysis against it, or describe what you did in plain terms and drop the label.
Is ethnography a philosophy or a methodology?
In the supplied material it is both, at different points. It is listed as a term associated with the interpretive position in the terminology table, and separately as a research methodology in the middle tier of the methodological pyramid. The source does not reconcile the two placements, which is a reason to define your use of the word explicitly.
How do I stop an interpretive study from reading as anecdote?
Show the machinery. State who you spoke to and why those roles, how the questions changed and why, how accounts were analysed, and where a different reading of the same transcript would be reasonable. Anecdote is an account with no visible method behind it; the method is what makes the same material research.
My sponsor only trusts numbers. Can an interpretive study still be useful to them?
Often it is the more useful of the two, because it returns the reasons behind a number the organisation already has. Present it that way: the dashboard shows the delay, the study explains what the people closest to it say produces the delay. Be explicit that the study describes explanations rather than measuring their frequency.
References and source attribution
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing (Chapter 1, p. 50 — the methodological pyramid reproduced in the teaching material).
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.
- An edited volume of master's degree research projects in project management, 2018, academic publisher, 378 pp. (the exemplar volume; design summaries paraphrased from published abstracts).
- The supplied teaching source: Week 2 study notes, slide deck and terminology tables, 'Introduction to Research Methods', for a master's-level research subject in project management.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Rewrite my findings so they attribute explanations to participants instead of asserting causes.
- Which roles do I need to interview for my account of this delay to be credible?
- Help me describe my analysis honestly without claiming a phenomenological methodology.
- How should I record and justify changes to my interview questions during fieldwork?
- What is the strongest claim my 12 interviews can support in a conclusion chapter?