Introduction: The Interpretive Turn

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
James F. Bohman ◽  
David R. Hiley ◽  
Richard Shusterman
Keyword(s):  
1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-112
Author(s):  
Peter H. Halewood

Is there the possibility of a critical standpoint from which to adjudicate the correctness or validity of constitutional interpretation? This basic question has been given considerable attention in contemporary constitutional theory and has been the focus of the pragmatist law as literature movement born of the interpretive turn in legal theory. At issue is the very purpose of constitutional practice: is it to recover the truth of a set of foundational, moral ideals from the constitution and apply it to a particular factual conflict? Or is it to preserve continuity between the various elements of our cultural practices, to keep the peace?


2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 425-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Bevir ◽  
Jason Blakely

Many advocates of interpretive approaches to the study of politics emphasize that what is at stake is a conflict between “quantitative” versus “qualitative” methods. By contrast, we begin by suggesting that political scientists are free to use whichever method they find most useful for their research purposes. Instead of methodological reasons for making the interpretive turn, political scientists have ethical reasons for adopting this paradigm. In particular, interpretive approaches give political scientists a better account of the nature and role of values in human life, a sense for how the historical past is ethically relevant, the ability to advance politically engaged sociologies, and a deliberative critique of technocracy. Political scientists should be free to critically engage, scrutinize, and even normatively evaluate human ethical positions.


1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 13-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth R. Howe
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Dodge ◽  
Richard Holtzman ◽  
Merlijn van Hulst ◽  
Dvora Yanow

The ‘interpretive turn’ has gained traction as a research approach in recent decades in the empirical social sciences. While the contributions of interpretive research and interpretive research methods are clear, we wonder: Does an interpretive perspective lend itself to – or even demand – a particular style of teaching? This question was at the heart of a roundtable discussion we organised at the 2014 Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA) International Conference. This essay reports on the contours of the discussion, with a focus on our reflections upon what it might mean to teach ‘interpretively’. Prior to outlining these, we introduce the defining characteristics of an interpretive perspective and describe our respective experiences and interests in this conversation. In the hope that this essay might constitute the beginning of a wider conversation, we close it with an invitation for others to respond.


Author(s):  
R. A. W. Rhodes

This chapter turns from ethnography to contemporary history, focusing on ‘life history’ as another example of blurring genres. The British tradition of political life history has six conventions: ‘tombstone’ biography; separation of public and private lives; life without theory; objective evidence and facts; character; and storytelling. The chapter reviews each before turning to the swingeing critique by ‘the interpretive turn’. Postmodernism deconstructed grand narratives by pronouncing the death of the subject and the author. The chapter outlines an interpretive approach that reclaims life history by focusing on the idea of ‘situated agency’: that is, on the webs of significance people spin for themselves against the backcloth of their inherited beliefs and practices. It explores, with examples, the implications of this approach for writing life history, stressing different uses for biography open to political scientists. It briefly discusses why the British tradition of political life history has proved resistant to change.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document