Interpretivism is innovative

The argument

Interpretivism started as an epistemological critique of Positivism in social sciences. Interpretivists hold that there is no objective truth. Instead, people experience their own "realities". In that respect, each person's viewpoint is important to the research process, including the researcher's. Interpretivists consider the social interactions among people valuable and often attempt to study them from the inside, rather than being detached as objectivist philosophies such as critical realism and Positivism purport.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the claim of innovation does not survive the dates. The interpretive turn in the social sciences is well over a century old — Dilthey's distinction between explanation and understanding, Weber's Verstehen, and the hermeneutic tradition behind them all predate the twentieth century — so a tradition that has been the standard alternative to positivism for generations cannot be described as innovative now. They add that novelty would not settle the question in any case: the position at issue is that interpretivism is among the best research philosophies, and being new is not a reason to think an approach is good. There is also a difficulty internal to the premises. If there is no objective truth and each person experiences their own reality, it is unclear on what footing interpretivist findings are offered to anyone else, and the sibling positions press exactly this — critical realism holds that a mind-independent reality can be investigated through fallible theory, while pragmatism denies that researchers must choose between objectivism and relativism at all. Critics note finally that the body describes what interpretivism is rather than defending it, offering no comparison with the rivals the question puts against it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The interpretive turn is well over a century old — Dilthey's explanation-versus-understanding distinction, Weber's Verstehen and the hermeneutic tradition behind them — so a long-standing alternative to positivism cannot be called innovative, and the strong claim that there is no objective truth leaves it unclear on what footing its findings are offered to others. [Rejecting P2] Studying meaning from within is a description of the method rather than a defence of it, and the body offers no comparison with the rivals the question sets against it. [Rejecting C] Novelty is not a measure of quality: the position at issue is that interpretivism is among the best research philosophies, and being a break from what came before is no reason to think an approach is good.