Interpretation of Content

Interpretation of Content

Interpretation in critical reviews

You need to be able to interpret what you read. Even textbooks represent an author's account or interpretation of theory or practice. E.g. textbook accounts of a socio-economic theory like Marxism tend to consist largely of an author's attempts either
to explain the theory from a particular perspective, or
to critique that theory in relation to other competing theories.

Part of the skill of reading into a writer's perspective - interpreting their position - lies in developing an awareness of the role language plays.

Interpretive skills comprise:

linguistic skills
procedural skills: a familiarity with the theoretical perspectives and the ways in which they are argued

You need to be able to look at arguments and to see whether :

the theories underpinning them are relevant to the problem
these theories are ideologically biased to a particular set of values

So, to interpret a text, you need to be:

able to read extended texts
aware that values or principles are involved
sensitivite to language

To intrepret your source materials in an independent and critical manner, you need more sophisticated language skills:

the critical evaluation of ideas and arguments, and
the rhetoric of argumentation

Interpreting theory

Any set of ideas we use to explain or understand something can be called a theory. The more influential a theory is, such as Marxism, functionalism and so on, the more academics rely on it to:

continue to explore related problems (apply it)
re-examine it
determine whether it is still valid (challenge or question it)

In each case academics ask themselves how well a theory "accounts" for what it claims to account for. Critics will explore:

general strengths and weaknesses of the theory
applications of the theory to a specific context or population (e.g. case studies)

Detecting & describing theoretical perspectives

Whatever your field, it is essential to be familiar with some of the dominant theoretical perspectives in that field. Let's look at an account of 3 popular perspectives in the Social Sciences:

In their book Doing Sociology, (1993: 58-9) Harvey and MacDonald identify three such perspectives operating in the Social Sciences. They show how different sociological issues can be examined by using different perspectives.
Below we show how this textbook describes different theoretical perspectives:

Positivism: "We only know about something if we can explain what caused it". Positivists in the social sciences use observable and measurable data to develop and refine theories that predict and explain phenomena - in the same way that natural scientists construct theories to explain the behaviour of matter. If observed events differ from the way the theory predicts, the theory is either modified or changed. Positivism maintains that knowledge should be based on `positive' real facts, not on abstract deductions or metaphysical speculation about the inner meaning of things. Its methods should be independent of the researcher, repeatable and reliable.

Phenomenology: is more concerned with interpreting the world than explaining it. Phenomenologists see sociological knowledge as dependent on an interpretation of the meanings of social actors or a close analysis of interactive processes. The social world cannot be grasped simply by observation - by looking at its surface appearance, but by trying to grasp the underlying perceptions and meanings that actors impose on it. The term is applied to diverse approaches to social enquiry.

Critical: what we do and how we think are constrained by the nature and structure of the social world we live in. Critical perspectives attempt to dig beneath the surface of social relations to show how knowledge is structured by existing sets of social/power relations. We can only know what something means if we understand how it has come about historically or how it relates to social structures. Most knowledge reaffirms the oppression in those social structures, whether class, gender, racial, sexual or generational. By breaking down (deconstructing) existing social relationships, we can reach a better understanding of these `taken for granted' oppressive mechanisms and the ideologies that legitimate and conceal them. This approach is found in Marxism, structuralism (and poststructuralism), and in most feminist and ethnic minority perspectives. Marxists, e.g., see the constraints on people as a result of class oppression resulting from the capitalist process of production. Real knowledge for Marxists is that which reveals how people are oppressed by this process.

The approach or perspective you take in your analysis, then, depends on whether you are primarily interested in:

causal explanations (positivism)
people's meanings (phenomenology or ethnography)
structural analysis (Marxism or othrer structursalist theory)

Applying theory to social problems

Harvey and MacDonald (1993: 7) give an example of a research project on domestic violence. They suggest that:

A positivist might focus on causes, such as money problems, drunkenness and unemployment. These factors might help to explain the phenomenon and how to prevent its’ recurrence.

A phenomenological approach would focus on the meaning the violence had for the people involved: they might be surveyed for their attitudes.

A critical sociologist would seek to understand domestic violence as part of a wider set social forces and mechanisms, or processes of oppression.

A critical feminist approach would set it within a broader social and historical framework, in which specific causes of domestic violence (poverty, drugs) only conceal the structural processes by which women are oppressed by men.

For another analysis of perspectives and rival cultures in Psychology, see the paper by Gregory Kimble ‘Psychology's two cultures’ (1984). Go to Bibliography for more details.