Cultural ResearchCultural Research

Relativism/InterpretivismRelativism/Interpretivism

Relativism• As mentioned in lecture three, positivism and

relativism are ontologically similar but epistemologically different

• If the sentence above does not mean much to you, this is simply because it uses some well-established jargon from the field of research philosophies

Ontology• This is a technical term for theories of

being, or of the nature of reality (it comes from the Greek verb “to be”)

• For example, “realism” and “idealism”, which we also met in lecture three, are opposing ontologies

Epistemology• This is a technical term for theories of

knowledge - what counts as knowledge and how can we achieve it (and how can we know when we have achieved it!)

• It derives from the Greek word for “knowledge”

Epistemology…

… a legacy of the Ancient Greeks

Relativism• Is the “scientific method” (derived from

positivism) the only reliable way of producing knowledge, or are there better alternatives for generating different kinds of knowledge?

Relativism• Positivism and relativism share the

same broad ontology in that both accept that there is indeed only one, external, reality

Relativism• They differ in that while positivism is

interested in finding the “universal” laws of that reality - laws which apply to all - relativism is interested in how individual or collective experience of that reality varies according to a wide range of factors

Relativism• As a result, its epistemological basis -

its view of how useful knowledge is to be produced - and the research methods which flow from that, are very different from those of positivism

Relativism• While debates over ontology and

epistemology can at times seem frustratingly (and unnecessarily) arcane, they have important consequences for how research is envisaged and carried out

Deductive methods• Positivism is characterised by

deductive methods

• Theories are developed, from which hypotheses are produced, these being tested against empirical data in order to be confirmed or rejected

Deductive methods

Inductive methods• These methods - of which there are

several, including interviews, focus groups, participant observation and Grounded Theory - are in some ways the direct opposite of the scientific method

Inductive methods• They begin not with theories, but with

the data itself• The researcher immerses him/herself in

the data, searches for patterns, regularities and uniformities

• On the basis of these insights, explanations are then offered

Grounded Theory• GT is a highly formalised method of

“qualitative” (relativistic) research developed by American academics Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s (though they later disagreed on how it should best be carried out)

Grounded Theory

Glaser and Strauss

Grounded Theory• It involves:

– The researcher approaching the object of study with as few assumptions or preconceptions as possible

– “theoretical” rather than “random” sampling, i.e. choosing respondents in line with the requirements of the developing theory

Grounded Theory– Continuing the “conversation” until

“saturation” is reached - i.e. until the point when nothing new is said

• GT is the most ambitious of the relativist methods, since it claims to produce real theory at the end of the process

Outline of a real-life GT project

Outline of a real-life GT project

Outline of a real-life GT project

From Christina Goulding, Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Managementt, Business and Market Researchers, London, Sage

Publications, 2002

Other approaches• Other approaches within the relativist/

interpretivist paradigm are less formalised (though they do have agreed procedures), and also less ambitious

Other approaches• The main ones are:

– Interviews– Focus groups– Participant observation

Other approaches• All of these carry significant ethical

considerations, and these must be addressed and approval sought before the research begins

• For example, covert observation - i.e. without the consent of those being observed - is no longer allowed

Other approaches• All of these will probably require recording

(whether video or audio) and subsequent transcription

• The participants’ permission must be gained before recording can take place

• The storing of information regarding participants on computers has implications under the Freedom of Information Act

Interviews• These can be:

– Structured (an agreed list of questions which are strictly adhered to)

– Semi-structured (agreed questions but with room for “improvisation”)

– Unstructured (no agreed questions, made up “on the hoof”)

Focus Groups• Should have 6-10 members• Never claim to be “representative”.

Nonetheless, you should be able to provide a rationale for the composition of your group

• Can be facilitated by the researcher or an “independent” person

Participant Observation• Must be “overt”• Can range from brief participation - e.g. the

duration of a football match - to long-term participation lasting many months

• As in all these methods, the researcher must be aware at all times of his/her influence on the situation/participation

Relativism/InterpretivismRelativism/Interpretivism

An ExampleAn Example

The Project• In 2006 I undertook a project with a Catalan

colleague researching the links (if any) between soap operas produced in Scotland and Catalonia and the question of Scottish or Catalan “national identity”

• We chose these two countries since they both qualify as “stateless nations”

The Project• The four products analysed were:

– Catalonia:• El cor de la ciutat• Ventdelplà

– Scotland• High Road• River City

• In each case one of these was urban, and the other rural

Some images from the soaps

High Road Ventdelplà

Some images from the soaps

River City El Cor

The Project• Although this was a Media Studies

project, its particular blend of methods (all deriving from an overarching relativist methodology) could easily be used in other non-media projects

The Project• It involved the following methods:

– Historical research: how did the members of these societies come to view themselves as “nations”, and what were the processes through which they came to be currently without “states”

The Project• It involved the following methods:

– Institutional research: of the broadcasting companies responsible for the soaps in question - one commercial and two public service - their history, past and current strategies and so on. This included (structured) interviews with producers, directors and scriptwriters

The Project• It involved the following methods:

– Discourse Analysis: we chose one episode from each of the four soaps and analysed them carefully for the inclusion of discourses of national identity (more on discourses in the next lecture)

The Project• It involved the following methods:

– Focus Groups: six in all, three from each country, one each from the following categories - urban, suburban, rural/semi rural

The Project• It involved the following methods:

– The format of the focus groups was as follows:• Initial questionnaire• Viewing of the episode chosen• Discussion of that episode• Closing questionnaire

• The focus groups were facilitated by a Research Assistant

The Project• The data provided by all of these

methods allowed us then to develop our analysis

• We concluded that national identity is indeed present in these productions, but the way in which this happens varies from country to country

The Project• The most important elements in

accounting for these differences were:– The existence of a Catalan public

broadcasting company– The very differing status of the respective

“local” languages, Catalan and Scots

The Article• You will find the final article along with

this lecture

• Have a read at it and consider whether this kind of mix of methods might be useful to you in any research you might want to undertake.

Many thanksMany thanks