ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
The purpose of this article is to give a high-level overview of interpretive research paradigms. It delves into the philosophical foundations of interpretivism research paradigm among all other research paradigms. This article begins with a summary of the components of the interpretivist research paradigm, with an emphasis on ontological and epistemological viewpoints from intrepretivists researchers. Next, it addresses the challenges interpretivist researchers face while conducting research under the Interpretivist paradigm and what characterizes the components in this paradigm are next discussed in detail. As researchers can explore subjective phenomena under this paradigm, this article takes a philosophical methodological stand to discuss how interpretivists researchers can distinguish themselves while conducting research by not adhering to several paradigms as they are mutually exclusive. The choice of a philosophical perspective to evaluate a subjective phenomenon should be guided by the demands and requirements of the research study, rather than focusing on the needs and requirements of a research investigation.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012) Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Provided by: University of South Florida. Located at:
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3/. License: CC BY-NC-SA:. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (Chapter 12)
Blaikie, N. (2004) Interpretivism. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. Liao (edt.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589.n442.
Black, I. (2006),"The presentation of interpretivist research", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 319 - 324P,
document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750610689069
Collins, H. (2010) “Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries” AVA Publications.
Eliaeson, S. (2002). Max Weber’s Methodologies. Cambridge: Polity.
Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Fulmer, I. S. (2012). Editor's comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, vol. 37, pp. 327–331.
Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, vol. 40, no. 2, pp.127–130.
Pulla, V., and Carter, E. (2018) Employing Interpretivism in Social Work Research International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice Horizon Research Publishing ,vol.6, no.1 March, 2018, pp. 9-1.
Rehman, A. A. & Alharthi, K. (2016). An introduction to research paradigms. Chapter 3. Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2014) Research methods for social work (8th ed.). Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
Myers, M. D. (2008) “Qualitative Research in Business & Management” SAGE Publication
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” sixth edition, Pearson Education Limited.
Shah, M. A., Elyas, T., & Nasseef, O. (2013). Research Paradigms: A Slippery Slope for Fresh Researchers. Life Science Journal, vol.10.
Sheppard, M. (2012). Social Work and Social Exclusion. Abingdon, GB: Ashgate. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.
Willis, K. (2013). Analysing qualitative data. In M Walter (ed.), Social research methods (3rd ed.), South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford university press.
Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, vol.21, pp.135–146.
Carey, M. (2012). Qualitative research skills for social work: Theory and practice. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Ebook.
Kreuger, L., & Neuman, W. (2006) Social work research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches: with research navigator. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon
Lawrence, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, vol.4, no.3, pp.324.
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, vol. 56, no. 32, pp.57-277.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.56.3.bj2h231877069482.
Ryan G. (2018). Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. Nurse Res. Mar vol.16; 25, no. 4, pp. 14-20. doi: 10.7748/nr.2018.e1466. PMID: 29546962.
Berryman, D. R. (2019). Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, and Methods: Information for Librarian Researchers, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp.271-279.
DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1623614
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research, Sage, London. Sage.
Tuli, F. (2010). The basis of distinction between quantitative and qualitative in social science: reflectionon ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives. Ethiop.journal of education andscience, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 97-108.
Wellington, J., & Szczerbinski, M. (2007). Research methods for the social sciences, London: Continuum.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2014). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, (2nd ed.). London & New York: M. E. Sharpe & Routledge.
Yanow, D. (2006). Thinking interpretively: Philosophical presuppositions and the human sciences. In D. Yanow & P. Schwrtz-Shea (Eds.). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (2nd ed., pp. 5-26). London: M. E. Sharpe.
Yanow, D. (2014). Neither rigorous nor objective. In D. Yanow & P. Schwrtz-Shea (Eds.). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, (2nd ed., pp.97-119). London & New York: M. E. Sharpe & Routledge.
Weaver, K., & Olson, J. K. (2006) Understanding paradigms used for nursing research. Integrative literature reviews and meta-analysis, pp. 459-469.
Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Mack, L. (2010). The philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia,vol.19. Retrieved From
http://en.apu.ac.jp/rcaps/uploads/fckeditor/publications/polyglossia/Polyglossia_V19_Lindsay.pdf
Gadamer, H. G. (1970). On the Scope and Function of Hermeneutical Reflection. Continuum, vol. 8, pp.77-95.
Boas, F. (1995). Race, Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eileen M. T. (2001). The choice of qualitative methods in IS research, Qualitative research in IS: issues and trends, pp. 1–19.
Hammersley, M. (2013). What is Qualitative Research? London and New York: Bloomsburry.
Myers, M. D., & Avison, D. (Eds.) (2002). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. London: Sage, 312, ISBN 0 7619 6632 3.
Schutz, A. (1970). On Phenomenology and Social Relations: Selected Writings. Ed. Helmut R. Wagner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
In-Text Citation: (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022)
To Cite this Article: Pervin, N., & Mokhtar, M. (2022). The Interpretivist Research Paradigm: A Subjective Notion of a Social Context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(2), 419–428.
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode