Journal of Social Research & Policy, Vol. 6, Issue 1, July 2015

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory in Understanding and Appreciating Interpretive Inquiry as a Methodology LAWRENCE MUGANGA1 Department of Educational Policy Studies, University of Alberta

Abstract In recent decades, qualitative research processes have gained respectability in the social sciences field. Among the different types of qualitative research, interpretive inquiry seeks to gain information from interview subjects and to analyze that information from the context of the participants. The concept of hermeneutics, which originated in Ancient Greece and gained popularity as a method of analyzing Biblical text during the 17th Century, has recently expanded its focus into several qualitative research areas. Hermeneutics not only represents a philosophy, but also a theoretical framework or methodological approach to research. This paper will demonstrate that as a framework and/or methodology, hermeneutics complements the aims of interpretive inquiry. Specifically, qualitative researchers employing hermeneutics can interpret the interview data by concentrating on three concepts: the whole-part relationship, interpretation, and language. These three aspects permeate every stage of the research process, beginning with preinterview activities and interviews and finishing with data interpretation and analysis. Although the use of hermeneutics and interpretive inquiries contain drawbacks related to the inherent subjectivity of both methods, the researcher needs to understand the relationship between their background, the subject’s context, and the language emerging from the interview process. As a qualitative researcher engaging in my own research area, educational policy, I have used both of these approaches to investigate the use of authentic and personalized learning in African postsecondary education.

Keywords: Hermeneutics; Interpretive Inquiry; Qualitative Research; Whole-Part Methodology; Interpretation; Language; Interviews.

Introduction My education and training in conducting quantitative research has shaped my understanding of how to approach this method. As I reflect upon my previous assumptions, I realize that I had previously perceived scientific studies as having greater superiority and value in comparison to qualitative studies. Unconsciously, I had developed assumptions and biases against qualitative research due to my lack of understanding about this important research branch. My assumptions relate to the apparent lack generalizability in qualitative case studies and its seemingly unsystematic methods of conducting research. Accordingly, this paper examines the importance of hermeneutic theory in its ability to inform and guide the qualitative research method of interpretation. The first part of the paper provides a background of qualitative research, including the way in which both hermeneutics and interpretive inquiry contribute to qualitative research. Subsequently, the paper engages in a thorough discussion of interpretive inquiry, elaborating upon the purpose, process, assumptions, and criticisms. The next part of the paper provides an introduction to hermeneutics followed by a discussion of the way in which hermeneutics informs interpretive inquiry. In this section, three important hermeneutic concepts, the whole-part relationship, language, and interpretation, undergo exploration. Subsequently, the paper

1

Postal Address: Department of Educational Policy Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, 5512 163 Avenue Nw Edmonton, Alberta T5Y 3L2, Canada. E-mail Address: [email protected]

Lawrence Muganga

66 | JSRP

examines the role of hermeneutics throughout each stage of the interpretive inquiry process, including pre-interview activities, interviews, data analysis, and data interpretation. The final part of the paper provides a discussion of my own personal role in conducting interpretive inquiry as informed by hermeneutics. As an educational researcher, I believe that the fusion of these two research methods represent an ideal fit for my current study. Qualitative Research - Background The broadest classification of research categorizes studies into two main branches: qualitative and quantitative. While traditional scientific research embraces a quantitative nature, using numbers as data and statistics, qualitative research uses text and meaning, thus making this method relevant in instances of communication (Arnett, 2007; Rowlands, 2005). This method eschews variables, hypotheses, measurements, and statistics; rather, qualitative research uses small sample sizes and interprets human experience in the form of words (Elliott & Timulak, 2005; Rennie, 2012). In fact, qualitative research constitutes a broad array of techniques that seek to “describe, decode, translate, and somehow come to terms with the meaning, rather than the measurement or frequency of phenomena in the social world” (Rowlands, 2005, p. 81). The characteristics of qualitative research involve a focus on understanding phenomena, using openended research questions, unlimited description options, special strategies for enhancing the credibility of design, and defining success in terms of new discoveries (Elliott & Timulak, 2005). The various types of qualitative research include empirical phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, protocol analysis, interpretive inquiry, and discourse analysis. Although qualitative research has existed for many years, scholars always considered quantitative research as the more reliable branch of research methodology (Arnett, 2007). In recent years, qualitative research has become increasingly acceptable in the sciences and social sciences. Generally, qualitative research has reached maturity with its acceptance in academic disciplines and other areas of life that formerly required the use of scientific research methods. Abdi (2001) states that: The prevalence of qualitative methodology in educational and other social science research has become an established fact in the last several decades. This may have been hastened by the decreasing relevance of the positivist ideology selectively colored by the growing confidence of social science researchers in the capability of qualitative research to adequately respond to the needs of observing, interpreting and analyzing educational and social development data (p. 1) Indeed, social science research continues to develop into a formative field in the modern world. Scholars have collaborated towards the improved development of research methods, leading to a clear understanding of the expectations of social science researchers. Qualitative research, in particular, has received increased attention from scholars, who have subsequently created and established methodologies to work with this kind of research. This type of research approach is based on various socially dependent issues that require subjective understanding and interpretation. Among the fields in which qualitative research predominates, education ranks as one of the leading disciplines that engage in this type of research (Elliott & Timulak, 2005). Hermeneutics in Qualitative Research The qualitative requirement of interpreting texts based on social context has led to the theory of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics literally means “interpretation” (Byrne, 1998; Smith, 2010). While the notion of hermeneutics originated in ancient Greece, its application to textual material began with Biblical analysis (Byrne, 1998; Crotty, 1998; Smith, 2007; Smith 2010). Consequently, the

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

67 | JSRP

concept and practice of hermeneutics predates the notion of qualitative research, suggesting that hermeneutics may have, at least to some extent, influenced this broad branch of research (Smith, 2007). Furthermore, hermeneutics relies on the use of a whole-part relationship, which forms the entry question by which researchers enter the hermeneutic circle (Agrey, 2014). Since qualitative research relies on textual rather than numerical data, the wording and language requires a means of interpretation; hermeneutics provides this methodology of interpretation. Like qualitative research, hermeneutics aims to analyze textual material derived from people (Smith, 2007). Unlike other types of qualitative research, such as ethnographic studies, participant observation, or grounded theory methods, where the researcher attempts to eradicate his/her subjectivity and biases, hermeneutics acknowledges researcher bias and infuses it into the text, along with the interviewee’s perspective, to create a new meaning altogether (Arnett, 2007; Hultgren, 1994). Researchers have argued for the importance of hermeneutics to the field of qualitative research because it aims to expose hidden meanings (Byrne, 1998). Since interpretation in the field social research can be influenced by many different factors, hermeneutics examines the way in which researchers conduct their processes of interpretation. Hermeneutics enables investigators to conduct research in a manner that conveys the intended meaning by a respondent. This theoretical approach attempts to deduce meaning from spoken or written text through the use of proper language and procedures. Specifically, this process emphasizes the language used, the way in which language achieves understanding, and the methods by which the researcher achieves understanding. Hermeneutics fits the paradigm of qualitative research because, unlike quantitative methods that seek objective truth, hermeneutics resists the concept of objective reality by exposing a range of possible meanings (Smith, 2010). Interpretive Inquiry in Qualitative Research In addition to hermeneutics, interpretive inquiry represents another form of methodology used in qualitative social research and analysis. This methodology has been increasingly applied to various disciplines (Wu & Chen, 2005). The literature contains controversy regarding the various understandings of interpretive inquiry. In some respects, an interpretive inquiry constitutes an “umbrella term for an array of different perspectives” (Hultgren, 1994, p. 12). Moreover, Arnett (2007) describes an interpretive inquiry as a “philosophy of communication” (p. 30). As a method of research, interpretive inquiry seeks to understand a text within the context of the respondents and their environment. Unlike quantitative research or even some forms of qualitative research, interpretive inquiry does not aim to establish dependent and independent variables or hypotheses; rather, its sole aim involves understanding the social context of phenomena (Rowlands, 2005). As a field of inquiry, interpretive inquiry has developed considerably since its inception, expanding to apply to several different fields. Arnett (2007) argues that the objectives of qualitative research correspond with the aims of an interpretive inquiry. As qualitative research, an interpretive inquiry responds to an occurrence of communication, the interview, publicly discloses the results, and provides evidence of these findings (Arnett, 2007). The alignment between hermeneutics and interpretive inquiry has influenced researchers to combine these two methodologies in the field of qualitative research. Specifically, hermeneutics has fulfilled a significant role in the process of developing interpretive inquiry due to its naturally structured approach to interpretation. In fact, Hultgren (1994) uses hermeneutics to inform her practice of interpretive inquiry. Therefore, the aim of this paper seeks to determine the importance of hermeneutic theory towards the understanding and appreciation of interpretive inquiry as a methodology. Without these two fields, qualitative research, especially in the social or social science field, poses great challenges to a researcher. Interpretive Inquiry As a methodology in qualitative research, interpretive inquiry aims to understand a text or an individual within its context. By establishing the meaning of a particular phenomenon,

68 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

interpretive researchers can better understand their subjects (Wu & Chen, 2005). Interpretation involves “the act of clarifying, explicating, or explaining the meaning of some phenomenon” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 133). From this perspective, qualitative researchers apply interpretive inquiry for the purposes of understanding their subjects within the context in which they are placed. Most researchers employing this methodology acknowledge that one’s knowledge of reality is shaped by language, personal perspective, and shared meanings (Rowlands, 2005). In addition, interpretive inquiry requires a theoretical framework from which to understand the subject and its context. Researchers using interpretive inquiry are closely situated to the action by their placement directly in the field (St. George, 2010). Interpretive inquiry originated as a response to deficiencies in qualitative research, especially those inherent in tools such as surveys and questionnaires. Specifically, these traditional methods produce generic responses that fail to accurately represent the individual and subjective variations among each respondent’s circumstances. One of the most important characteristics of interpretive inquiry involves the fact that it seeks “to understand informants on their own terms” (Ellis et al., 2013, p. 4). The ability to provide context to each participant’s answers yields a more comprehensive understanding of the results sought in qualitative research. Interpretive inquiry situates each respondent within their context by providing informants with an opportunity to express their ideas clearly and engage in a conversation with the researcher. Researchers using interpretive inquiry must possess the ability to understand the background of the respondent and the circumstantial factors that shape his or her answers. Creswell (2011) argues that, “knowledge is constructed by people or by groups of people, not discovered” (p. 14). From this perspective, a text or conversation attains meaning by the context from which it evolves. As a researcher conducting an interpretive inquiry, investigators must aim to uncover this meaning as perceived or intended by the respondent. The interpretation of data provided by the respondent can take different shapes depending on the researcher, the shared information between researcher and respondent, and the prejudice concerning other issues. Among most qualitative research methods, interpretive inquiry provides a flexible approach that allows the researcher to adapt to changing situations (St. George, 2010). Purposes and Process of Interpretive Inquiry Purpose The main purpose of interpretive inquiry is to acquire new knowledge through better understanding of the issues that surround society through human experience (Wu & Chen, 2005). In order to achieve this aim, the researcher must understand the respondent’s answers according to the context in which the interview occurs. The overall context of a situation generally encompasses the environment in which the interpretive inquiry occurs. According to Harper (2002), a person, respondent or informant is a product of the environment, which has been shaped by the history of the person and the location. By having a clear picture of the way in which history has affected a person, the researcher can place the collected data in the appropriate context (Harper, 2002). Interpretive inquiry constitutes an important aspect in qualitative research and provides the researcher with an opportunity to disprove the myths that surround various theoretical understandings (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). According to Ellis (1998c), a person conducting an interpretive inquiry must first possess a clear understanding of the issue and have the willingness to put aside his/her assumptions in order to gather new knowledge. This important feature ensures that any qualitative research process can reveal information that may have been misunderstood or placed in the wrong context. In some instances, the process of interpretive inquiry can be considered a narrative inquiry as a researcher converses with the respondent in order to acquire information (Polkinghorne, 1995). During the narrative, also known as the inquiry, the investigator can gather data from the respondent in a clear and unprejudiced manner. This process enables the researcher to place the information in the correct context, thus enabling the investigator to derive new meanings that align with previously known understandings. Unlike other types of qualitative research, interpretive inquiry seeks to acknowledge the assumptions, biases, and prejudices that can interfere with the data interpretation. This process enables the investigator to acquire new

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

69 | JSRP

information based on the context of the respondent. Subsequently, the researcher can develop new theories based on the information received from the interpretive inquiry, hence ensuring that the inquiry captures the essence and meaning that the respondent provides to the data (Mishler, 1986). As a result, any theories developed from an interpretive inquiry are clearly situated their context and discount the prejudice of the researcher. Morse (1994) argues that theory can only be formed from the inquiry of data and from a deeper understanding of the issues involved. This statement implies that an interpretive inquiry plays a vital role in the development of theory based on new meanings derived from the context in which the respondent answers. Process of Interpretive Inquiry Interpretive inquiry works in a similar manner to normal inquiry processes in qualitative research. However, unlike other qualitative procedures, the interpretive inquiry process follows a systemic method, which means that the correct steps must be established to enable the interviewer to gain additional knowledge and the confidence of the respondents (Ellis, 1998a). Prior to undertaking an interpretive inquiry, a researcher must understand the topic under discussion and the issues that need to be addressed. This knowledge comes from pre-interview activities, which include the definition of a research problem, the identification of a theoretical perspective, and the choice of a research methodology (Rowlands, 2005). The research problem involves a statement of what the researcher wants to learn, which leads to questions that aim to gain further knowledge of a particular phenomenon. The researcher then identifies the most suitable methodology that will enable him/her to answer the question (Rowlands, 2005). After identifying the research question and methodology, the investigator needs to determine the theoretical framework, which “consists of a selection of concepts and relations among them, grouped so as to enable its users to easily see their structure” (Rowlands, 2005, p. 86). The development of a theoretical perspective begins with the identification of assumptions. These assumptions involve the nature of knowledge and the ways of studying various aspects. Furthermore, the information in previous literature and the nature of the study contribute to the determination of a theoretical framework (Rowlands, 2005). This knowledge comes from a thorough examination of the literature, enabling the researcher to identify gaps and construct research questions from gaps in the literature (Elliott & Timulak, 2005; Rowlands, 2005). In combination, these activities will enable the investigator to form a structure to guide the inquiry. Despite the existence of a distinct methodology, the interpretive researcher needs to maintain sufficient flexibility and open-mindedness to accommodate unexpected data and make methodological changes (Wu & Chen, 2005). After the researcher conducts a literature review, derives a research question, and decides upon a theoretical framework, the investigator must decide upon a data collection method. The main data collection method interpretive inquiry usually comprises interviews. However, triangulation strategies, which aim to vary the data collection methods, also encourage other ways to generate findings, such as researcher observation (Elliott & Timulak, 2005). After defining the research question, the investigator needs to engage in sampling selection. The interpretive inquiry generally uses purposeful sampling, which aims to select participants that reveal important aspects of the research topic (Elliott & Timulak, 2005). In addition, the researcher needs to meet with the subjects of the research and inform them of the study and its processes. The pre-interview process serves several purposes in the inquiry. First, this process prepares the respondent for the subsequent interviews and enables the researcher to gain more information about the context (Ellis, 2006). In addition, pre-interview activities facilitate the formation of a rapport between the researcher and respondent; this rapport allows the researcher to gain a better understanding of the subject, the topic, and the situational constraints (Rowlands, 2005). Once the researcher has primed the research subjects, the interviews can begin. The first step in the interview process requires the use of an entry question (Agrey, 2014; Ellis, 1998b). Several criteria exist for the entry question, including simplicity, flexibility, and practicality (Agrey, 2014). In addition, this query must be clear and devoid of any insinuations or expectations. Without clarity, the question will lead the researcher away from the topic of investigation, as the respondent may provide unnecessary information that detracts from the main topic under consideration. However, the entry question for an interpretive inquiry must leave the

70 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

respondent with room for elaboration and the researcher with the opportunity for interpretation. Questions that require a definitive yes/no answer are inappropriate for the interpretive inquiry. These questions fail to provide the researcher with a chance to understand the context in which the respondent frames the answer. In this case, the respondent will likely provide informative data that leads to a further inquiry from the researcher. Accordingly, the entry questions must stimulate continual inquiry such that each answer leads to a new question until the researcher has derived the meaning of the answer based on the respondent’s context. In order to uncover new meaning in the participants’ responses, Ellis (1998a) encourages researchers to “…begin from the humility of acknowledging that one doesn’t know the answer…” (p. 51). This attitude will enable the researcher to develop new theories based on a different understanding of the data. After the entry question, the second step of the interpretive inquiry involves uncovering the ideas behind the answers given for the entry questions (Ellis, 1998c). This part constitutes a vital step in the interpretive inquiry process. The information unearthed at this stage enables the researcher to develop the questions that will provide him or her with a better understanding of the issues being investigated. As Ellis (1998b) notes, uncovering “…may not lead directly to a solution, [but] will often enable the researcher to understand the problem…” (p. 54). Thus, the investigator will obtain an increasingly accurate identification of the problem, hence establishing the context of understanding the situation from the respondent’s perspective. This process uncovers new information as well as known information. The new data that emerges from this process fulfills a significant role in understanding possible theories, including the grounds on which such theories are established and the influence that they have on current theories. For instance, respondents may intentionally conceal information in their answers, and the researcher can uncover this data in the interpretive inquiry process, hence allowing the investigator to ensuring the discovery of complete information about a given aspect (Ellis, 1998b). The third step in the interpretive inquiry process seeks to compare the findings from the inquiry with previously known information. The data analysis step begins with data preparation, which involves the transcription of interviews from notes and tape recordings. During this stage, the researcher may obtain initial insights, which he/she records in the form of memos (Elliott & Timulak, 2005). After several readings, the researcher codes the data according to predetermined categories based on key concepts emerging from the research questions. However, the interview process may have resulted in the emergence of new or slightly modified categories (Rowlands, 2005). As elaborated upon in subsequent sections, hermeneutics aids in this comparison process through methods such as whole-part understanding (Ellis, 1998a). In this step, the researcher finds information from previous sources and determines the existence or omission of this data in the current study. Subsequently, the researcher places any missing information into context, which enables the investigator to form new meanings. These new meanings, which include the missing information from current theories and new information uncovered in the findings, ensure that the researcher can develop an inclusive and credible theory that emanates from previous knowledge yet contains new understandings (Ellis, 1998b; Rowlands, 2005). This comparison process requires careful attention, as it seeks missing information from current theories and implies the way in which the absence of such information may affect the credibility of previous theories. Therefore, the process of revealing new meanings and information requires the development of a clear methodology to help in the interpretation process. This methodology, which assists the researcher in the process of interpretation, draws extensively upon the theory of hermeneutics. Assumptions and Criticisms of Interpretive Inquiry Assumptions Interpretive inquiry involves several assumptions, the most prominent of which concerns a definition of “reality.” As Smith (1991) emphasizes, most social and educational research strives to obtain data based on an objective rather than a subjective concept of reality. Quantitative research, which concerns numerical data and traditional forms of qualitative research, such as surveys and questionnaires, which seek definitive answers to questions, rely upon an objective

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

71 | JSRP

reality. These research areas therefore assume the existence of an objective “reality” independent of the subject’s perceptions, emotions, beliefs, and background. Many researchers are preoccupied with arriving at the “truth” under objective circumstances. While seeking this objective reality, such researchers free themselves of subjectivity and biases. They believe that the truth exists separate from the prejudices and assumptions of both the investigator and the respondent (Smith 1991). From this perspective, researchers assuming an objective reality posit that this singular reality exists for both the subject and object. Unlike scientific experimental studies that seek qualitative data and traditional methods of qualitative research, interpretive inquiry dismisses the idea of an objective reality that exists independently of the subject. Rather, interpretive inquiry assumes that reality differs for each individual, and that each individual participates in the construction of his/her own reality through his/her unique contexts (Smith, 1991; St. George, 2010). As John Smith (1993) explains, “interpretivists see research as an eminently practical and moral activity that share much in common with, other forms of inquiry, such as those practiced by journalists, novelists, painters, poets, and ordinary people in their day-to-day lives” (p.100). By referring to an interpretive inquiry as a moral activity, Smith denotes the concern behind ascertaining meaning, thus implying the obligation of the researcher to understand a text or the reasons behind an action by carefully and intensively considering the subjective context. Interpretivists view objectivity as an agreement among inquires or interpretations and subjectivity as disagreements or conflicts among interpretations of a single text. Specifically, researchers conducting an interpretive inquiry perceive reality as a shared understanding between the interviewer and the interviewee(s) (Rowlands, 2005). However, even this conception of objectivity problematizes the assumptions of the interpretive inquiry, as two parties that agree upon an interpretation of a single text or situation may disagree on the interpretation of a different text. As a result, the interpretive inquiry assumes that reality depends upon the subject, thus denying the existence of a singular and objective reality apart from the contexts of the subject and object. Criticisms One major criticism of interpretive inquiry concerns its lack of objective reality. However, such criticisms fail to distinguish between non-realists and anti-realists. Anti-realism, otherwise known as nihilism, argues that reality lacks any meaning because no objective reality exists outside of subjective interpretation; consequently, life consists of an endless and meaningless circle of interpretation, which, to some extent, represents the criticisms leveled against the hermeneutic circle (Smith, 2007; Smith, 2010). Unlike anti-realists, who believe in a complete lack of any reality, interpretivists acknowledge the existence of multiple realities that vary depending upon the context of a situation (Smith, 1991). As Merriam (1998) states, in interpretive research, “multiple realities are constructed socially by individuals” (p. 4). The idea that reality can undergo active construction by the subject and the object indicates the role that researchers engaging in interpretive inquiry must fulfill in questioning and interpreting the respondent. Since the interpretive researcher can infuse his/her biases in understanding the subject, the respondent’s account may undergo distortion (Wu & Chen, 2005). The position of non-realism hinges on the absence of foundation to construct objective knowledge and the lack of foundation for knowledge implies that no interpretation is right or wrong (Smith, 1991). Therefore, since the interpretation of a situation depends on different values, interests, or purposes among researchers, multiple interpretations can emerge from one situation. The interpretation process leads to another criticism of interpretive inquiry. As Smith (1991) maintains, critics of this type of qualitative research may view the interpretation process as susceptible to exploitation, where researchers can willingly impose any interpretation on the respondent and/or text. In fact, St. George (2010) refers to this interpretive research processes as “open, changeable, loose, [and] individualistic” (p. 1624). The process of constructing meaning allows qualitative researchers to exploit their interpretive freedom and impose any meaning at will on the subject. These meanings, which largely result from researcher bias, lack the ability to generalize to the population, thus undermining the credibility of interpretive inquiry (Wu & Chen, 2005). In response to these critics, Rorty (1985 apud. Smith 1991) argues that researchers need to justify or support their interpretation on the particular environmental context, such as the

72 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

place, time, and culture. The theoretical framework that guides the interpretive inquiry must also inform the meaning of the research (St. George, 2010). In addition to considering theory and context, interpretivists need to illustrative evidence to support their interpretation of a situation with “good reasons and careful judgment” (Smith, 1991, p. 102). While the interpretive inquiry lacks a set of definitive guidelines, the judgment of its value hinges on the “practical accomplishments, undertaken within the context of dialogue and persuasion that we work out as we go along” (Smith, 1991, p.103). While some interpretations have more value or accuracy than other interpretations, the better interpretations are not more “realistic,” as interpretive inquiry states the virtual impossibility of arriving at an objective reality (Smith, 1991); rather, the better interpretations are more faithful to the respondent’s context. Qualitative researchers can overcome this criticism by using hermeneutics, whose methodology assists interpretivists in arriving at a precise and accurate interpretation through the whole-part relationship. Hermeneutics The concept of hermeneutics has existed since ancient times; the term “hermeneutics” translates roughly from the Greek word “hermeneutike,” which means “interpretation” (Smith, 2010, p. 432). In Ancient Greece, hermeneutics first applied to the translation of divine messages through oracles and omens (Smith, 2010). The advent of the written language, which alienated the words from the speaker present in oral language, brought the need for the interpretation of language. Without the speaker, the words, isolated on their own, are subject to multiple interpretations. In this context, hermeneutics aims to fill the gaps by discerning the most appropriate interpretation of a text (Ghasemi et al., 2011; Smith, 2010). Hermeneutics has retained its meaning throughout most of history; in the seventeenth century, it became a specialized term provided to describe a methodology of textual interpretation within the context of biblical studies. Crotty (1998) contends that, “hermeneutics was, and is, the science of biblical interpretation. It provides guidelines for scholars as they engage in the task of interpreting Scripture” (p. 87). Although philosophical definitions of hermeneutics vary across time and interpretive fields, focusing on issues such as the nature of being and experience (Butler, 1998), the basic premise underlying hermeneutics involves a distinction between the surface meaning as articulated through language and the range of possible underlying meanings beneath the language. This concept assumes that language plays a double role in interpretation; language enables people to analyze reality yet also restrict their understanding of the world through its subjectivity (Byrne, 1998). The process of text interpreting has been denied its rightful place in the field of research. Crotty (1998) argues that, “texts are not just antique or foreign curiosities. They are means of transmitting meaning — experience, beliefs, values — from one person or community to another” (p. 91). Scholars have often assumed that researchers provide the meaning to a text. However, this belief has been replaced by the understanding that meaning is based on the context rather than the researcher, leading to the realization that the same text or phenomenon can have different meanings. In modern times, the theory of hermeneutics has expanded into many other areas of scholarship to include the interpretation of not only written textual material but also various events, situations, and experiences. Crotty (1998) proffers that “not only has hermeneutics been brought to bear on texts other than the scripture, but it has been brought to bear on unwritten sources also—human practices, human events, human situations—in an attempt to read these in ways that bring understanding. This outcome squares with the centrality of language in any concept of human being.” (p. 87). This understanding of hermeneutics corresponds to that of Ricoeur, who views the interpretation of writing as a more difficult endeavor than that of spoken language. In writing, the distancing of writer from the text causes a different interpretation than the spoken word, where the speaker utters the words in the presence of the listener (Tan, Wilson & Olver, 2009). Indeed, the most important aspect of human communication is language, whether expressed in writing or orally. As in the case of interpretive inquiry, several criticisms of hermeneutics exist. The first criticism of hermeneutics involves its lack of a clear process or method, which challenges its usefulness in rigorous academic research (Chang, 2010; Tan, Wilson & Olver, 2009). However,

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

73 | JSRP

Tan, Wilson & Olver, (2009) argue that hermeneutical research must consider the perspective of the individuals engaged in the events, including the speaker/writer and the reader/listener, thus providing it with an appropriate frame of reference. Although the speaker and listener will have, at least, slightly different interpretations, of a text, event, or situation, the overall analysis must consider both viewpoints (Tan, Wilson & Olver, 2009). Wu & Chen (2005) caution that researchers may distort the meaning of the subject by imposing their own biases on the respondent. However, the subjectivity inherent in hermeneutical interpretation can be mitigated in two ways. First, the researcher needs to focus on the individual parts of the text, such as the grammatical and syntactical construction of language along with the meaning of words. When interpreting visuals, researchers need to conceive symbols, such as objects, artifacts, and architectures, as objective indications of historical events. The second approach involves comparing the “whole” discerned from the research to other objective “wholes” that exist outside of the context of the study (Rennie, 2012). In addition, some opponents of hermeneutics have criticized the whole-part relationship, also known as the “hermeneutic circle,” or the “hermeneutic arc” due to its inherent circularity (Smith, 2007; Tan, Wilson & Olver, 2009). Although the hermeneutic circle seems to oppose conventional logic, the idea of the whole-part relationship comprises a dynamic rather than a static analysis. Thus, after examining the how the parts relate to the whole, the researcher arrives at an entirely new understanding of the whole, which the researcher subsequently applies to an examination of the individual parts (Smith, 2007). From this perspective, the hermeneutic circle provides the researcher with a different understanding rather than a reinforcement of a previous knowledge. However, this point raises another criticism: the perpetual circle of interpretation in which the hermeneutic circle can continue infinitely. Heine (2004) articulates that rather than enabling the researcher to arrive at definitive conclusions, hermeneutics results in further questions. However, a skilled researcher must realize the point at which they need to extricate themselves from the circle to arrive at an informed and appropriate interpretation (Smith, 2007). The final criticism of hermeneutics involves its reliance on language to inform understanding. According to Smith (1991), the use of language brings various challenges to research. The interpretation of language depends on a number of factors, including understanding and social context. As a result, these aspects can cause different people to interpret a verbal or written text in completely different ways. Written speech, according to Smith (2010) is “subject to interpretations that the original speaker never intended” (p. 433). This idea indicates that a researcher must exercise caution in order to obtain the true meaning of text, whether it is written or spoken. This phenomenon poses challenges to researchers, especially those conducting qualitative inquiries such as interpretive inquiry. Therefore, a person working in social research must understand the processes behind interpretation so that they can undertake research endeavors more successfully. Ellis (2006) argues that qualitative research relies on the proper use of language as well as on understanding the nature of research. By asking the right questions, researchers can enhance the data collection process by attaining responses that directly address the research questions. The correct use of language prompts interaction with the respondent, hence providing detailed answers required by the researcher. Ironically, Ellis (2006) proffers that “language both enables and limits interpretation” (p.116). Qualitative researchers must resolve this conundrum by using language to their advantage rather than allowing language to interfere with their ability to understand the respondents’ meaning. Hermeneutics assists in this process because it provides the researcher with way of interpreting the respondent within his/her own context. Crotty (1998) argues that, “… to emphasize that hermeneutics is a sharing of meaning between communities or persons is already to indicate that it is no mere academic exercise. It has practical purposes in view” (p. 91). From this perspective, hermeneutics facilitates the researcher’s ability to find the right meaning as intended by the respondent. This methodology aids the process of interpretive inquiry in many ways, as discussed in the next section of the paper. Specifically, hermeneutics relies on various strategies to unravel the meaning behind research data. These strategies include interpretation, whole-part understanding, and language (Ellis, 1998a).

74 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

The Intersection between Hermeneutics and Interpretive Inquiry How Hermeneutics Leads to Understanding of Interpretive Inquiry As a method for facilitating the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics contributes significantly to the process of qualitative research, especially interpretive inquiry. Since interpretive inquiry constitutes a research process for developing theory or unearthing new information, the researcher must attempt to understand the collected data in a way that discovers the real meaning and creates new ideas (Ellis, 1998a). Interpretation provides meaning to a given form of text as perceived by the researcher, a process that has long been viewed as scientific. Ellis (1998a) argues that “the interpreter works holistically…” hence showing the need to approach interpretation in a manner that brings out the true meaning of the text (p. 15). Hermeneutics informs the process of interpretive inquiry by seeking to determine the meaning of the respondent’s answer through a consideration of contextual factors that can potentially influence interpretation. Crotty (1998) elaborates upon and enriches Ellis’ argument by articulating that “… hermeneutics has always been more than just a disciplined attempt to identify textual meaning and intent; it is very much a form of inquiry into how text can be and should be applied” (p. 91). During the process of interpretive inquiry, the interview between the researcher and the respondent involves a continual dialogue, which enables the researcher to obtain further clarification from the respondent; this dialogical process fulfills the objective of hermeneutics, which seeks to obtain the speaker’s true meaning (Ghasemi et al., 2011). The approach or theory of hermeneutics approach embraces three concepts including that of whole-part interpretation, language, and interpretation, the latter of which seeks to understand the text through the interdependent relationship between macro perspectives and the micro perspectives. Consequently, interpretive inquiry as informed by hermeneutics constitutes a credible research paradigm for qualitative studies. Whole – Part Concept The whole-part relationship, also known as the “hermeneutic circle” (Byrne, 1998; Smith, 2007), involves a connection between the micro and macro perspectives that inform any interpretation of a text. Specifically, the researcher using a hermeneutics methodology must attempt to understand the entire text, known as the whole, in relation to its constituent parts while also understanding the individual parts from the perspective of the whole text. Crotty (1998) refers to this whole – part relationship of unearthing new meanings as the hermeneutic circle, which points to the understanding of “… the whole through grasping its parts, and comprehending the meaning of parts through divining the whole” (p. 92). Okrent (1988, apud. Crotty, 1998) provides more clarity on the concept of the hermeneutic circle by arguing that Our knowledge claims in regard to the meaning of whole text or of the meaning structure of some society will be supported by evidence supplied by our knowledge of the meaning of particular sentences or acts. On the other hand, our knowledge claims in regard to the meanings of those individual elements will be supported by and justified in terms of our knowledge of the meaning of the entire structure. (p. 161). The “meanings” and “knowledge” mentioned in the preceding paragraph usually consist of language, which comprises different aspects that combine to form a whole-part relationship; researchers then infer this relationship to mean something different from that of the individual composition. Ellis (2009) argues that research “…requires attention to whole-part relationships in order to discern the meaning of particular experiences…” (p. 484). This statement provides a clear indication that each constituent part of the information provided by the respondent fulfills a vital role in the process. Accordingly, the researcher must analyze each answer from the respondent in the way that it contributes to the whole. At the same time, the researcher must understand the wider context as provided by the respondent, thus allowing the investigator to ascertain the way in which the broader context provides meaning to each individual answer.

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

75 | JSRP

Therefore, the researcher must possess the ability to transition between these two perspectives, the macro and the micro, in a way that enhances proper understanding of the context and hence aids in interpretation. Without this whole-part process, the researcher struggles to conduct an interpretive inquiry, as his/her capacity to learn the true meaning of text as provided by the respondent becomes a daunting task. Through this hermeneutic paradigm, the interpretive inquiry process gains research acceptance, since users can discern how the methodology has helped in improving the processes of understanding and interpretation. To achieve the goal of whole-part analysis, the researcher must engage the respondent in a manner that creates rapport and enables the researcher to gather additional data from the respondent (Ellis, 2009). Without the formation of rapport, the respondent may feel reluctant to respond honestly to the researcher’s questions, while the researcher will lack an understanding of the respondent. This situation will interfere with the researcher’s ability to analyze the respondent’s answers in their proper context. The data gathered can subsequently undergo analysis as its constituent parts provide new meaning to the whole and the whole provides new meaning to each part. However, the process of hermeneutics provides clarity in contexts beyond that of language and textual data. As previously discussed, researchers in an interpretive inquiry must analyze the individual in the context of his/her environment, which includes the interviewer, interviewee, the location, the time, and the experiences of the individuals (Harper, 2002). From this perspective, the process of hermeneutics aids in an interpretive inquiry by enabling the researcher to transition from individual cultural and historical events to the overall background of the individual. By transitioning his/her analysis between the cultural background of the person and the current events, a researcher can gather data in a more efficient manner (Ellis et al., 2013). For the most part, researchers should strive to gather as complete a dataset as possible within reasonable limitations. Nevertheless, the paradigm of hermeneutics provides interpretive researchers with a means of understanding the way in which to conduct the data interpretation. Since the understanding of each constituent part facilitates the comprehension of the whole dataset, researchers can use hermeneutics to enhance their knowledge of the overall perspective. The use of hermeneutics in the various stages of interpretive inquiry will undergo further discussion in a later section of the paper. Furthermore, the whole-part structure of hermeneutics also allows researchers to analyze their information more efficiently. According to Ellis (1998a), the third step in the interpretive inquiry process involves comparing the findings from the inquiry with previous findings from the body of existing literature about the given subject. This process can represent an overwhelming endeavor, especially in the absence of a clear methodology to guide the researcher’s comparison. Research in the social field, especially qualitative research, can present challenges with ambiguity surrounding the guidelines of the inquiry process. This ambiguity causes researchers to undergo tedious work to find the appropriate areas of comparison between the new findings and the existing literature, and, even then, the investigator may misinterpret the data (Ellis et al., 2013). However, the whole-part paradigm of hermeneutics allows researchers to organize the comparison process into smaller chunks. By breaking down the whole into small parts that the respondents and the researcher can manage, hermeneutics allows researchers to collect and analyze data more efficiently and accurately. Subsequently, the investigator can use the information gathered from respondents to structure the data interpretation, hence reducing issues that may have emerged as research challenges. Another way in which hermeneutics, especially the whole-part concept, can guide interpretation and comparison involves the use of visual aids. Visual aids constitute important artifacts in the interpretive inquiry process (Harper, 2002). The context within which respondents provide information enables the researcher to possess a clear understanding of historical issues that may influence a person to behave in a certain manner. According to Harper (2002), pictures elicit memories more effectively than text. In a study conducted to understand levels of family adaptation to regions with mixed ethnic groups, Harper (2002) notes that, “…photos sharpened the informants’ memory and reduced the areas of misunderstanding” (p. 14). In an interpretive inquiry, which requires the researcher to place the respondent’s information in the correct context, the use of visual aids produces remarkable results, as the researcher can use these aids to guide the respondent towards remembering historical events that affect his or her decision-making. Ellis et al. (2013)

76 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

also support this claim, citing another study observing that participants were more willing to provide information after being shown some photographs. The stimulation of the respondent’s memory increases the likelihood of yielding accurate information, which provides a more appropriate context in which to interpret the data. This process utilizes the whole-part concept of hermeneutics; the pictures or other visual aids provided to the respondent represent “parts” that help to form his/her memory of a “whole” situation. After arriving at a whole understanding, the respondent can then relay the part that the researcher seeks in the research question. Subsequently, the researcher understands the part of information provided from the respondent to arrive at a whole understanding shaped by his/her research question and by the context that he/she observes. In this manner, hermeneutics, facilitated by the use of visual aids, allows the respondent and the researcher to oscillate between the whole and its constituent parts. The whole-part paradigm implicit in hermeneutics provides the researcher with a methodology by which to guide his/her interpretive inquiry at all stages of the process. In hermeneutics, the investigator must understand the whole and all of its parts to correctly and efficiently interpret the meaning of the object (Smith, 1991). The different parts of the text or communication contribute to the researcher’s understanding or interpretation of the whole topic or question that he/she seeks to answer. When combined to make the whole, a new meaning, the integration of all parts leads the investigator to a clear understanding. Smith (1991) argues that, “…good interpretation involves a playing back and forth between the specific and the general…” (p. 190). In qualitative research, data collection involves a tedious process that requires the compilation of a significant amount of information, possibly from different respondents and in different places. To make inferences from such data, the researcher must examine the issues that were discussed during each part of the inquiry. As already noted, the process of interpretation requires an examination of the context and intended meaning from respondent; hence, different respondents may have different understandings of a given issue. The researcher should seek aggregated understanding by examining the respondents’ intended meanings. As noted by Guba & Lincoln (1994), human beings seek an attachment to their immediate environment and provide information based on a given context. The process of acquiring information from the different respondents necessitates that the researcher possesses an understanding of the context in which they provide information prior to attempting to integrate the constituent parts of each answer and each respondent into an entire theory. From this perspective, hermeneutics’ whole-part methodology guides the interpretive inquiry process by requiring the researcher to understand the different parts to comprehend a whole and to understand the whole as it gives meaning to the various parts. Language Furthermore, hermeneutics assists interpretive inquiry through the phenomenon of language. Through language, speakers or writers simultaneously create and articulate their own reality (Chang, 2010). The process of interpretive inquiry occurs through the communication between the respondent and the researcher, where the researcher poses questions that guide the respondent towards providing a certain answer. This communication must occur through a common medium, which language provides. Ellis (1998a) argues that language “…is the very basis for understanding itself” (p. 9). From this perspective, the understanding of language invokes the hermeneutic concept of whole-part interpretation; language itself consists of both parts and wholes that the speaker and listener must connect in order to make meaning and arrive at an understanding. Hermeneutics guides the interpretation of language by assigning a meaning for each word based on the idea that “’this’ means that’” (Smith, 2010, p. 433). The whole-part relationship occurs on several hierarchical levels; the basic unit of language, the phoneme, combines with other phonemes to construct entire words, while words combine to form sentences and sentences combine to form larger texts (Smith, 2007). Thus, in order to communicate via language, speakers need to use the whole-part paradigm to interpret meaning out of phonemes, words, sentences, and entire documents. The basis for this meaning involves the interpretation of grammatical language (Smith, 2010). By connecting the smaller parts to arrive at larger wholes, and understand the smaller parts through their placement in the larger context, such as words in sentences, speakers and listeners can increase the accuracy of their understanding.

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

77 | JSRP

Therefore, the structure of language itself mirrors the hermeneutical paradigm, thus showing that hermeneutics constitutes an appropriate approach for decoding the language used, by both the researcher and the respondent, in an interpretive inquiry. Hermeneutics implicates the use of language in not only form but also content. Hermeneutics considers the relationship between the language and meaning; language constitutes the message or surface meaning of a situation that requires deeper analysis (Ghasemi et al., 2011; Smith, 2010). Language both restricts and enables a speaker to understand reality, a concept known as part of the hermeneutic circle; while words uncover the meaning beneath a text or situation; these words also “label” a phenomenon, thus disguising its true essence (Byrne, 1998). Hermeneutics as a broad field of study arose in an attempt to place the context of the written words back with the original speaker. Language, without the presence of the speaker, is subject to multiple interpretations, many of which may lack accuracy (Smith, 2010). In an interpretive inquiry, language provides the researcher with a means of interacting with and understanding the respondent. People’s understanding of the world depends upon language (Byrne, 1998). Unlike more conventional forms of qualitative research, such as surveys and questionnaires, the interpretive inquiry relies on conversations or interactions with respondents in order to gather the required data. Smith (2002) notes that hermeneutics can constitute a form of conversation. This belief has enabled researchers to concentrate on understanding a conversation and formulating these interactions in such a way that facilitates their ability to gather information efficiently. Through the dialogue between the interviewer and the interviewee, the dialogue provides an opportunity to negotiate and clarify meaning, which occurs at the intersection between the understandings and perspectives of each speaker in the dialogue (Chang, 2010; Ghasemi et al., 2011). The ability of interpretation to transform meaning comprises a key factor in interpretive inquiry. Factors such as time and place affect the respondents’ information and the researchers’ understanding of that data, thus requiring that the investigator consider environmental factors in ascertaining the respondents’ true meaning. In reference to the interpretive inquiry, Smith (1991) argues that, researchers must “gain a sense of etymological traces carried in words to see what they point to historically” (p. 199). Hermeneutics theory posits that language and culture are inseparable, as they both change with time. As a researcher conducting an interpretive inquiry, the investigator must discover the cultural or environmental factors underlying the language in order to place the respondents’ answers in the appropriate context to find the right meaning. Not only does the researcher need to correctly understand the respondents’ messages within the appropriate context, but the investigator also must frame their own language carefully when constructing and posing questions for the respondent. The researcher needs to use language appropriately in order to enable the respondent to address the required question. In an interpretive inquiry, the initial entry question (Ellis, 1998a) requires careful thought and wording in order to guide the interview in the right direction. From this perspective, hermeneutics theory assists in the development of the entry question by considering the whole-part relationship not only between the question and the context but also between the parts and wholes within the language itself. Thus, the use of hermeneutics enables the researcher to begin the process of the interpretive inquiry. Since language provides the medium for human communication, the structure of the language used in communication determines the direction of a conversation, thus indicating the researcher’s ability to effectively collect data from the respondents (Ellis, 2006). Data collection requires careful use of language, enabling the researcher to collect valid data without wasting resources in the process. Smith (1991) notes that researchers must “…develop a deep attentiveness to language itself, to notice how one uses and how others use it” (p. 199). This dual conception of hermeneutics implies that researchers need to prepare carefully worded questions that elicit desired responses and subsequently consider both context and language in their process of interpretation and analysis. Since the data interpretation emanates from the participant’s answers, poorly worded or inaccurate questions that send the wrong message will yield answers that fail to address the research question. These oversights enhance the researcher’s difficulty in interpreting the message, as the respondent’s answers may not truly address the question as the researcher intended. Since language has evolved over time, researchers need to consider the changing meaning of language in the framing of their questions and the

78 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

interpretation of the participant’s responses (Smith, 1991). By invoking the paradigm of hermeneutics, researchers can consider the whole-part relationship among language and between language and context to frame questions that guide accurate responses. Interpretation Finally, hermeneutics aids interpretive inquiry through the process of interpretation. In fact, the fundamental objective of hermeneutics, as previously shown through its etymology, involves interpretation (Smith, 2010). This methodology distinguishes between two types of interpretation: soft and hard. While soft interpretations involve universal meanings upon which most people agree, hard interpretations seek to uncover a text or event when a person lacks the appropriate background or frame of reference for such interpretations. These “hard” interpretations necessitate investigation (Smith, 2010), which interpretive inquiry fulfills. Not unlike interpretive inquiry, hermeneutics assumes the existence of multiple interpretations of a given text or situation, hence resisting the idea of an objective reality (Smith, 2010). Similarly, the process of interpretive inquiry seeks to understand or interpret the respondent on his/her terms (Smith, 1991). Like interpretive inquiry, hermeneutics focuses on the notion of intersubjectivity, which assumes that two individuals share a common world (Byrne, 1998). This concept fundamentally informs the interpretive inquiry, where the researcher and respondent share a common understanding. Although hermeneutics initially described as the interpretation of a text, its methodology has expanded beyond language and text to incorporate any situation. Prior to engaging in hermeneutical research, the investigator must admit to his/her lack of understanding, which enables the careful interpretation of a situation or a text (Hultgren, 1994). In the nineteenth century, philosopher H.G. Gadamer suggested that the hermeneutical inquiry begin with a question; however, rather than beginning with a question, this process of creative interpretation seeks a question that answers a given text or situation (Arnett, 2007; Smith, 2010). While this initial query corresponds to the entry question that initiates the process of interpretive inquiry, as suggested by Ellis (1998a), the two processes ultimately complement one another in inverse directions. The entry question poses a query designed to begin the inquiry into a research investigation, while the hermeneutical query works in the reverse direction, where the phenomenon precedes the question (Smith, 2010). From this perspective, the two processes of interpretive inquiry and hermeneutics work together to fulfill another hermeneutic technique: the whole-part relationship that requires continual comparison of the whole and its constituent parts (Crotty, 1998). While the researcher employing hermeneutics poses a question which results in an interpreted phenomenon, the uncovering of the phenomenon subsequently leads to its interpretation from the perspective of the original question (Smith, 2010). Moreover, hermeneutics aligns with the interpretive inquiry process through the relationship between the past and the present. When people read and interpret a text, they need to bridge the historical gap between the past and the present in order to discern the author’s intention (Smith, 2007). Researchers studying a text from the past bring their own present interpretations garnered from their positioning in the past, thus resulting in what Chang (2010) terms “a fusion of horizons” (p. 22). In an interpretive inquiry, hermeneutics attempts to understand the past experiences of the self and the subject as well as the prejudices that arise based on history (Byrne, 1998). According to Smith (2010), hermeneutics strives to connect the past and the present by invoking the “soul” of the original speaker as a way of interpreting his/her words. This aim requires the researcher to connect the possible present interpretations of the language back to the past with the aim of learning about the past in light of the present (Smith, 2007). Likewise, interpretive inquiry often connects the present to the past by interpreting the respondent’s answers, which occur in the present time, to several aspects of the past, including his/her personal background and any historical events that have affected the topic under investigation (Smith, 1991). However, the ideology of hermeneutics acknowledges the impossibility of fully understanding the speaker’s original meaning, as the limitations of the written text as well as the inability of the speaker or writer to fully disclose his/her thoughts indicates that an interpreter can only improve rather than perfect a speaker’s complete meaning (Chang, 2010; Smith, 2010). Similarly, interpretive inquiry maintains that “reality” apart from the subject’s intended meaning, lacks existence (Merriam,

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

79 | JSRP

1998; Smith, 1991; however, subtle distinctions exist between these two theories. While Platonic versions of hermeneutics, such as that espoused by German philosopher Husserl, suggest that objective reality does exist but cannot be attained by human knowledge (Byrne, 1998; Smith, 2010), interpretive inquiry dismisses the existence of objective reality and poses the more manageable goal of discovering subjective reality (Smith, 1991. Despite these distinctions, both methodologies disregard the existence of an “objective” reality and rather focus on constructing a reality based on the subjective experiences and intentions of the speaker. The researcher arrives at this “reality” partly from a comparison between the past and the present, in which the investigator uses the whole-part technique to view the subject and the meaning of his/her responses from the context of his/her past and the historical implications associated with aspects such as culture, politics, race, economics, and war. Since the past reality, as intended by the historical speaker or writer, differs from the present reality, as understood by the reader/listener/interpreter, a single text, event, or situation can elicit multiple meanings (Smith, 2007) The Role of Hermeneutics throughout the Stages of Interpretive Inquiry The researcher implementing a hermeneutical approach to an interpretive inquiry utilizes hermeneutical beliefs, techniques, methods, and strategies at every stage of the interpretive inquiry. Throughout the entire process of the interpretive inquiry, the researcher can implement hermeneutic “loops” of understanding at each stage: topic selection, literature review, preinterview activities, interviews, transcript compilation, interpretation, and analysis. These “loops,” informed by the understanding of the previous stage, subsequently inform the next stage. Even within these loops, the constant process of interpretation leads to multiple changes at each stage (Chang, 2010; Ellis, 1998a). The following section will explicitly delineate the way in which hermeneutics informs each stage of the interpretive inquiry process. Pre-Interviews and Interviews Interpretive inquiry uses interviews as the primary method of data collection. Qualitative research benefits from the interviewing process in different ways, including the acquisition of new information, the development of new inferences, and the understanding of contexts within which information is delivered, hence improving the understating of the researcher (Morse, 1994). The conversation that occurs between the researcher and respondent ensures that the interviewer collects valuable information from the respondent. In fact, hermeneutics perceives interpretation as a type of “conversation” between the researcher and the interviewee that permits a mutual understanding between the two parties (Smith, 2010, p. 435). This dialogue, in which the researcher and respondent participate mutually, allows the interviewer to uncover knowledge of the text, respondent, and context (Byrne, 1998). In this sense, the researcher’s understanding of the respondent provides him/her with a context for understanding the respondent while the respondent must understand the objective of the investigator in order to provide him/her with answers that address the research questions. Due to their familiarity with interviews, most researchers perceive this method of data collection as an easy technique (Weber, 1986). Unfortunately, this attitude causes the respondent to lose confidence in the interviewer, which may influence the respondent’s answers and the researcher’s arrogance in interpreting the data. In order to eliminate these problems, the researcher needs to establish a rapport with the respondent by understand his/her background information through a pre-interview exploration (Ellis, Amjad & Dend, 2011). Pre-Interviews The pre-interview process prepares the respondent and enables the researcher to gain more information from the process (Ellis, 2006). Before the interview begins, the researcher requires a question or topic that captures their attention (Chang, 2010). In the interpretive inquiry process, the researcher can pose an entry question to establish the precedent for the main process, which involves acquiring information from the respondent (Ellis et al., 2011). By conducting a preinterview with respondents, the researcher gives the respondents time to prepare for the interview

80 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

and reminisce about past issues that may have led to certain actions in society. Hermeneutics assists in the pre-interview process by determining the relationship between the present context of the interview and the historical events that have influenced the speaker. During the preinterview process, the researcher can obtain background information about the respondent(s), which establishes the future context for the respondent’s answers during the formal interview and provides a deeper understanding (Ghasemi et al., 2011). According to Smith (2010), “all understanding takes place within a horizon of past, present and future” (p. 435), hence indicating that the interviewee’s past experiences inform his/her current understanding or feelings about a particular topic. The researcher requires insight into the respondent’s past to reveal his/her experiences and feelings, which inform the researcher’s interpretation of his/her answers. Thus, the investigator must obtain a background for the events influencing the research so that he/she can document the changes that have taken place, the reasons that led to the changes, and the meaning of the respondents’ assertions in the current time (Ellis et al., 2011). The pre-interview contributes to the processes of hermeneutics and interpretive inquiry by providing the researcher with background knowledge of the subject. Previous experiences shape the language and data provided by a respondent. Polkinghorne (1995) notes that, “human action is the outcome of the interaction of a person’s previous learning and experiences…” (p.11). The researcher must conduct interviews, which constitute the backbone of interpretive inquiry, in a way that respondents can accurately remember their past. As already highlighted, the interviewers can stimulate the respondent’s memory through the use of pre-interview activities that might require the respondent to provide more meaningful information in the appropriate context. The preliminary interviews prepare the respondent and help him or her remember several important aspects. In the actual interview, this memory jog plays a significant role. In particular, the researcher’s acquisition of contextual background information allows him/her to understand the respondent’s interview answers from the perspective of this background. As previously established, hermeneutics uses the paradigms of interpretation, language, and the whole-part relationship as key factors in the interpretive process. The use of these techniques helps to ease the interview process and provides greater context to an understanding of the issues under consideration. Specifically, hermeneutics influences interviews through the use and understanding of language and the researcher’s interpretation of the respondent’s information as well as the respondent’s own understanding of the researcher’s questions. From this perspective, hermeneutics provides greater credibility to interpretive inquiry, as the researcher’s interpretation of the data collected from the interview can lead to the development of new theories, a factor that qualitative research previously lacked (Peshkin, 1993). Interviews In order to conduct an effective interview, researchers must understand the difference between interviews and conversations. Carson (1986) argues that the fundamental difference between conversations and interviews involve the outcomes of these two communication methods. Specifically, while conversations can reveal common beliefs between the individuals holding the conversation, interviews explicitly seek information from the respondent. From this perspective, conversations represent two-way exchanges while interviews generally deliver information in one direction. In both methods of communication, however, the researcher and respondent engage in a dialogue that passes information between them (Carson, 1986). Hermeneutics assists in the interview process by invoking the hermeneutic circle during the encounter. The researcher starts at one point on the circle, shaped by his/her background, history, perceptions, emotions, and experiences, and tries to set these influences aside in order to understand the speaker, who stands at another point in the circle (Smith, 2007). This point at which the researcher enters the hermeneutic circle corresponds to the entry question in the interpretive inquiry (Agrey, 2014; Ellis, 1998a), which is informed by the hermeneutical impulse to question (Arnett, 2007). The forward arc of the circle involves the historical, temporal, and cultural context surrounding the respondent, while the backward arc entails a retrospective assessment of the initial entry question based on the respondent’s answers (Agrey, 2014). After the initial question, the researcher can engage publicly with the text by prescribing the limits or bounds of the text (Arnett, 2007), or, in the case of an interpretive inquiry, the research subject. The researcher performs this “framing”

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

81 | JSRP

by acknowledging his/her biases as well as the context that shapes the subject and the interaction between these two factors (Arnett, 2007). During the interview, the researcher must continually negotiate between the parts and the whole of the research question or topic (Rennie, 2012). When the researcher concludes his/her interview with the participant, he/she perceives the topic from a new perspective based on this encounter, especially when trying to discern the relationship between the individual parts of the text or conversation and the whole (Smith, 2007). Furthermore, hermeneutics assists in the interview process by presenting the human experience as rendered through narrative. During this process, respondents tell their “hopes, desires, memories, fantasies, intentions, representations of others, and time” (Josselson, 2004, p. 2). Through these personal stories, the researcher can gain a better understanding of the subject matter by interpreting the story from the interviewee’s perspective. The use of metaphors and the relationships between the present, past, and future help to shape the story and provide meaning to it (Arnett, 2007). Interviews represent a more efficient way to conduct the research process; since the respondent informs the researcher, the researcher lacks the opportunity to inject his/her prejudices in the process. However, once the researcher has used the interview effectively to successfully collect data from different individuals, they need to provide a clear understanding to the information by performing data interpretation and analysis (Morse, 1994). Data Interpretation and Analysis The process of data interpretation and analysis follows the interview. The data collected from interviews must undergo interpretation to some kind of standard that indicates the meaning of the data. As already highlighted, interpretation and analysis comprise important aspects of qualitative research (Morse, 1994). Analysis is the development of patterns and other themes from collected data. The interpretation aspect attempts to give meaning to those patterns or the perceptions of the respondent. To find the meaning, the researcher must utilize the whole-part relationship, which uses a back and forth paradigm, as explained in hermeneutics. This process enables the researchers to derive the correctly interpreted data, which can undergo subsequent analysis. Rundell (1995, apud Crotty, 1998) infers that “through hermeneutics, interpretation has become part of our cultural self-understanding that only as historically and culturally located beings can articulate ourselves in relation to others and the world in general.” (p.91). As a result, researchers must interpret the respondent’s responses from the perspective of their culture and history. In order to accomplish this process, researchers need to acknowledge their own influences and eliminate those understandings. After an encounter with a research respondent, the investigator has arrived at new understandings when the material they yielded failed to fit with their previous understandings (Smith, 2007). On the other hand, when investigators interpret information incorrectly, they produce flawed outcomes of the research process, which constitute a failure in research, since the objective of an interpretive inquiry involves understanding the meaning of text as perceived by the respondent. To derive the right patterns, the data must be properly interpreted. Josselson (2004) distinguishes between hermeneutics of faith and hermeneutics of suspicion. While hermeneutics of faith seeks to restore meaning to a text by examining the messages from the perspective of interview participants, hermeneutics of suspicion strives for an explanation beyond the text or participants. In the context of the interpretive inquiry, the hermeneutics of faith represents the most appropriate approach. Specifically, the whole-part relationship in hermeneutics ensures that the researcher interprets the data correctly by placing the pieces of information in the right place and joining them to give meaning to the whole. The researcher must compare all statements or data provided by a respondent to the information received during the pre-interview activity process that provided the background context of the subject (Peshkin, 1993). In this sense, the researcher compares the parts, which constitute the individual responses, to the whole, which comprises the context. Once the interpretation has taken place, the researcher must analyze the data by finding patterns in the research. Morse (1994) elaborates on this process: “the process of comprehending is often a painful process of maturing, from examining piles of seemingly unrelated bits of knowledge to identifying something that is patterned…” (p. 30). Among the three main strategies of hermeneutics, the whole-part relationship experiences extensive use in the process of interpretation and analysis stage (Packer & Addison, 1989). During this stage, the researcher’s

82 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

objective involves dividing the interview data into “meaning units,” which are the smallest available pieces of writing that communicate meaning to the reader; the researcher uses his/her judgment in dividing the data accordingly (Elliott & Timulak, 2005, p. 153). These data units correspond to the parts of information in the hermeneutic circle. After dividing the data into units, the researcher codes or categorizes the data based on the meaning of the units (Elliott & Timulak, 2005). This process of coding utilizes the whole-part methodology, as the researcher relates the parts of the data to form a whole. In fact, “the meaning units are constantly compared to each other and to the emerging categories (p. 154), thus implicating the hermeneutic circle that requires constant comparison between the whole and its parts. Moreover, the researcher applies the hermeneutic whole-part strategy interpreting the results. During this stage, the researcher develops a claim that can be tested against the patterns established, thus providing a clear meaning for the data (Elliott & Timulak, 2005). As in any research process, a researcher must establish a question that the research will attempt to answer. After data collection, the researcher compares the question, also known as the claim or hypothesis, to the interpreted data. Hermeneutics plays a key role in this stage of the research. Its three techniques, language, interpretation, and whole-part understanding, are used extensively in the process of analysis and interpretation. The perspective of the respondent provides meaning to the constituent parts of the research while the whole data forms the meaning of the aggregated parts (Ellis, 2010). The process of transitioning between the part and the whole enables the researcher to relate the whole to the part and infer new meanings. Since the speaker of the text, the interviewee, is no longer present during this stage, the researcher loses the full meaning of the spoken words, forcing the investigator to rely on a transcript and their memory of the conversation (Tan, Wilson & Olver, 2009). Interpretation, therefore, is a vital aspect of qualitative research, as it illuminates important meanings that would have otherwise been assumed or neglected (Morse, 1994). Specifically, the whole-part relationship in hermeneutics assists interpretive inquiry by providing researchers with an opportunity to find true meanings of data as observed by the respondents. The analysis stage is considered the theory development stage (Peshkin, 1993). At this point, the researcher has already interpreted the data correctly and needs to establish themes that have emerged from the data. Hultgren (1994) asserts that the discovery of themes aligns with the hermeneutical methodology; she envisions themes as “knots on the webs of our experiences, around which certain lived experiences are spun” (p. 21). Prior to the establishment of themes, the researchers conducting interpretive inquiry must have made assumptions. The investigator evaluates these assumptions against the new data and the patterns that they have found emerging from the data (Jardine, 1992). Hermeneutics fulfills an important part in the data analysis. Researchers conducting an interpretive inquiry need to compare the data obtained from the inquiry to existing literature. Chang (2010) states that literature exists not as an independent body of knowledge, apart from the researcher, but as part of the researcher’s interpretation. Hermeneutics facilitates the process of analysis by interpreting the existing body of literature as expressions of ‘lived experience,’” which requires the researcher to understand the literature from the perspective of the subject (Smith, 2010, p. 434). This lived experience becomes manifest through the narrative process of the interpretive inquiry, where the research subject tells his/her story about a particular phenomenon (Josselson, 2004). Through the narrative or story format, hermeneutics relates the whole and its constituent parts by viewing individual actions within the story in the context of the entire story (Agrey, 2014). As a result, the researcher must undergo the whole-part methodology by viewing the literature from the perspective of the interviewee and the interviewee from the viewpoint of the literature. By perceiving the literature and the interview data together as “lived experience,” the investigator can compare his/her findings with the current research in order to derive new theories about a given topic. The wholepart mechanism inherent in hermeneutics assists in guiding this process. This comparison methodology ensures that the general conclusion from the research is supported by the constituent conclusions and data in the research. Researchers must continually conduct the whole-part comparison until the researcher is satisfied that the micro and macro perspectives support each other in the context of the themes. During the process of writing the research report, the researcher must also undergo the whole-part methodology of the hermeneutic circle; as one writes, they arrive at new understandings (Agrey, 2014). Hermeneutics, therefore, contributes to

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

83 | JSRP

the development of interpretive inquiry through the continuous querying of the collected data until a solution is found. The analysis of the collected information fulfills a critical role in the development of meanings and should, therefore, represent an important final step of the research. These findings enable qualitative research to join other disciplines in development of credible theories (Morse, 1994). Personal Relevance of Hermeneutics in Interpretive Inquiry As an educational researcher, the combination of hermeneutics and interpretive inquiry represent an excellent fit for my current area of research, which examines the use of authentic and personalized learning methods in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). According to Agrey (2014), educational researchers have traditionally used quantitative research as the dominant paradigm to data collection and analysis. However, this type of positivist analysis fails to align with educational research, as it overlooks the importance of subjectivity. As a qualitative researcher in the field of education, I have utilized interpretive inquiry as informed by hermeneutics in my own study. In fact, the literature on both interpretive inquiry and hermeneutics has cited education as one of the fields in which these two methods, alone or in combination, are most suited. St. George (2010) states that along with other disciplines, such as organizational development, accounting, and information systems, education ranks as one of the most common areas using interpretive inquiry. In fact, the process of inquiry is central to the student-centered methods of authentic and personalized learning, as this method enables teachers to move beyond the outdated view of students as blank slates and conceive a democratic relationship between students and teachers in asking questions and constructing knowledge (Agrey, 2014). Since authentic learning emanates from the constructivist philosophy first espoused by John Dewey (1916), the process of interpretive inquiry applies not only to educators reflecting on their own pedagogical methods (Heine, 2004) but also to teachers educating students through the process of questioning and problem-solving. In addition to interpretive inquiry, hermeneutics also largely informs research in education. Smith (2007) discusses the applicability of hermeneutics to the human sciences, which include healthcare, psychology, and education. According to Smith (2010), hermeneutics bears important relevance for qualitative research in the field of education. Through its tendency to continually question the relationship between the phenomenon and its meaning, hermeneutics possesses the “capacity to protect the conditions for young people being able to live and learn in an atmosphere of creativity (p. 432). By continually questioning the relevance and meaning of education through hermeneutical processes, educators, administrators, and policymakers can continually inquire into the suitability of the curriculum in preparing students for the real world. This thought process invokes the hermeneutical paradigm of the whole-part comparison, where educators relate the field of education, the part, to the broader context of the real world. From this perspective, the use of hermeneutics allows researchers to continually question important keywords such as “curriculum, research, and pedagogy” (Agrey, 2014, p. 396). By reassessing existing curricula and pedagogical methods, educational researchers can pose a hermeneutical question that stimulates conversation (Agrey, 2014). The whole-part paradigm of hermeneutics enables educators to perceive themselves as part of a cog in a larger system, where the actions of all of the stakeholders in education influence other stakeholders. According to Butler (1998) the social world is therefore constituted by a web or network of relations that are generated by social actors’ goals and objectives. Such goals and objectives serve to help actors formulate and realize the possibilities presented to them in the course of their everyday existence. (p. 289) This statement aptly describes my research; as an educational researcher, I recognize the interrelationship between all of the actors, or stakeholders in education, including students, teachers, administrators, educators, and policymakers. The “goals and objectives” of each

84 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

stakeholder entail a revision in the way that SSA conceives and delivers postsecondary education. By understanding myself as an important agent responsible for the education of others, I can arrive at a new understanding of myself (Agrey, 2014). In addition, I can arrive at a new understanding of education in SSA and my role within this area by stimulating conversation and initiating dialogue among stakeholders, as hermeneutics seeks to question rather than to arrive at a definitive answer (Agrey, 2014). Furthermore, the use of hermeneutics as a meaning-making endeavor aligns perfectly with my study. My project seeks to initiate an investigation into the use of authentic and personalized learning in postsecondary institutions of SSA for sustaining the modern creative economy. This creative economy emphasizes creativity, innovation, and new ideas, where knowledge represents a process rather than merely a product. In order to succeed in the modern creative economy, students require deep thinking skills that emphasize manipulation and synthesis rather than merely the memorization and recitation of isolated facts (Sawyer, 2008). Authentic and personalized learning are considered creative methods of education, as they center on the student and his/her experiences. Smith (2010) maintains that interpretation through hermeneutics requires acts of creativity: “understanding the truth of a strange or difficult situation requires an act of imagination to see possible meanings, rather than just expecting meaning to reveal itself” (p. 434). By stimulating creativity in students, teachers can provide them with the knowledge and skills required for the modern workforce and the contemporary creative economy. In the classroom, hermeneutics provides a way for students to interpret text and literature. Using Ricoeur’s concepts of explanation and understanding, students must engage with a text to move beyond its surface meaning, or explanation, to its deeper meaning, or understanding. The wholepart relationship aids in this process as it guides students to relate the parts of the surface meaning to the entire context to arrive at a deeper understanding (Ghasemi et al., 2011). In addition, the use of hermeneutics in academia allows students “a way for discerning openings in their own traditions which in turn enable creative dialogue with other traditions” (Smith, 2010, p. 435). My study aligns with this approach, as my own traditions and experience in the education systems of SSA have demonstrated a need for examining the uses of authentic and personalized learning in current SSA postsecondary institutions. Unlike other qualitative methods that attempt to remove researcher bias, hermeneutics acknowledges the existence of the subject and his/her biases in relation to object (Agrey, 2014; Hultgren, 1994). Since I have already experienced similar conditions to the participants, my experience resembles theirs, facilitating the fusion between my experience and that of the research subjects (Agrey, 2014). Finally, my research demonstrates both interpretive inquiry and hermeneutics. Researchers have used a combination of a hermeneutics and interpretive inquiry in other fields, including information systems (Butler, 1998). Heine (2004) discusses the role of hermeneutics in the teaching process. In this thesis, he implies that hermeneutics aligns with the process of inquiry central to the student-centered learning approaches, such as authentic and personalized learning. From this perspective, hermeneutics provides a way for teachers to relate to students on their own terms by recognizing the unique background and knowledge that each student brings to the classroom. Hermeneutics occurs in the interactions between teachers and students, which constitute ongoing conversations that implicate students as co-participants in their own inquiries (Hultgren, 1994). Since hermeneutics refers to texts and situations, teachers and students can interpret the needs, interests, and strengths of one another in a democratic process. By interpreting students like a text, teachers can design teaching methods that relate the students’ present knowledge to the new curricular knowledge that they need to gain. St. George (2010) connects interpretive research to hermeneutics and constructivism based on the researcher’s role and responsibility of actively creating meaning. This research methodology mirrors the subject of my investigation: active learning methods such as authentic and personalized learning in SSA, which emanate from the constructivist philosophy of education (Dewey, 1916). In addition, teachers can also engage in hermeneutics as a way of understanding their own practice and pedagogy; this thoughtful reflection enables them to discover new ways of teaching (Hultgren, 1994).

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

85 | JSRP

Conclusion This paper has provided a thorough discussion of interpretive inquiry as a qualitative research process informed by hermeneutics. Qualitative research has recently gained respectability for its role in social research, including my field of education. Among qualitative methods, interpretive inquiry aims to understand study participants in their own historical and cultural context for the purposes of examining a particular issue. Hermeneutics, the method of interpretation, is one of the most significant factors that have led to the success of interpretive inquiry. Since interpretive inquiry embraces conversations and stories to gather data, hermeneutics has established various themes that provide researchers with an avenue to further their goals in this type of inquiry. In particular, hermeneutics depends upon the whole-part relationship paradigm, the correct use of language, and the appropriate interpretation. Researchers employing an interpretive inquiry can use hermeneutics at all stages of the research process, including pre-interviews, post interviews, interpretation, and analysis. Despite the complementary relationship between the two processes, both hermeneutics and interpretive inquiry contain several drawbacks, including the lack of an objective reality, the subjectivity of the process, and the lack of a defined structure. However, researchers engaging in these processes must exercise caution to interpret and analyze phenomenon in their own context. Personally, I have used both hermeneutics and interpretive inquiry in my own research on authentic and personalized learning in SSA postsecondary institutions. These approaches have allowed me to question the purpose of education in the context of the modern economy for the purposes of stimulating discussion among stakeholders in SSA postsecondary education.

References 1.

Abdi, A. A. (2001). Qualitative methodology, the historical sociologist and oral societies: re-assessing the reliability of remembered “facts”. FQS Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online journal], 2(3), pp.133140. Retrieved 9th July, 2016 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards,

2.

Agrey, L. G. (2014). Opportunities and possibilities: Philosophical hermeneutics and the educational researcher. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(4), pp. 396-412.

3.

Arnett, R. C. (2007). Interpretive inquiry as qualitative communications research. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), pp. 29-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17459430701617887

4.

Butler, T. (1998). Towards a hermenutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 13, pp. 285-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jit.1998.7

5.

Byrne, M. (1998). Hermeneutics 101. Laurel, MD: ERIC.

6.

Carson, T. (1986). Closing the gap between research and practice: Conversation as a mode of doing research. Phenomenology + Pedagogy , 4(2), pp. 73-85.

7.

Chang, J. (2010). Hermenutic inquiry: A research approach for postmodern therapists. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 29(1), pp. 19-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2010.29.1.19

8.

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Education research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, New Jersey: Pearson Books.

86 | JSRP

9.

Lawrence Muganga

Crotty, M. (1998). Interpretivism: the way of hermeneutics. In M. Crotty (Ed.), The social foundations of research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, pp. 10-91. London.: Sage Publications.

10. Dewey, J. (1916). The school and society. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from https://archive.org/stream/schoolsociety00deweiala#page/88/mode/2up/search/from+the +stand+point+of+the+child 11. Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. In J. Miles & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 147-159). Oxford University Press. 12. Ellis, J. (1998a). Interpretive inquiry as a formal research process. New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc. 13. Ellis, J. (1998b). Interpretive inquiry as student research. In S. Steinberg, & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.) Key Works in Critical in Critical Pedagogy (pp. 49-62). London: Falmer Press. 14. Ellis, J. (1998c). Introduction: The teacher as interpretive inquirer. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc. 15. Ellis, J. (2006). Researching children's experience hermeneutically and holistically. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(3), pp. 111-126. 16. Ellis, J. (2009). Interpreting Results. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 484-486), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 17. Ellis, J., Amjad, A., & Deng, J. (2011). Interviewing participants about past events: The helpful role of pre-interview activities. In Education [Online Journal], 17(2). Retrieved July 9th 2016, from http://ined.uregina.ca/index.php/ineducation/article/view/83. 18. Ellis, J., Hetherington, R., Lovell, M., McConaghy, J., & Viczko, M. (2013). Draw me a picture, tell me a story: Evoking memory and supporting analysis through pre-interview drawing activities. Alberta Journal of Educational Research , 58(4), pp. 1-43. 19. Ellis, J., Janjic-Watrich, V., Macris, V., & Marynowski, R. (2011). Using exploratory interviews to re-frame planned research on classroom. Northwest Passage Journal of Education Practices , 9(1), pp. 11-18. 20. Ghasemi, A., Taghinejad, M., Kabiri, A., & Imani, M. (2011). Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation: A method for understanding text (course text). World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(11), pp. 1623-1629. 21. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 22. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), pp. 13-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345 23. Heine, B. (2004). Connection: A hermeneutical inquiry of an autobiographical fragment (Master thesis). Univeristy of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB.

The Importance of Hermeneutic Theory …

87 | JSRP

24. Hultgren, F. H. (1994). Interpretive inquiry as a hermenutics of practice. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 12(1), pp. 11-25. 25. Jardine, D. W. (1992). Reflections on education, hermeneutics, and ambiguity: hermeneutics as a restoring of life to its original difficulty. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 26. Josselson, R. (2004). The hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion. Narrative Inquiry, 14(1), pp. 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ni.14.1.01jos 27. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 28. Mishler, E. G. (1986). The Analysis of Interview-Narrative. In T. R. Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct (pp. 233-255), New York: Praeger. 29. Morse, J. M. (1994). "Emerging from the data": The Cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 30. Packer, M. J., & Addison, R. B. (1989). Evaluating an interpretive account. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. 31. Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Education Researcher, 22(2), pp. 24-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x022002023 32. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch, & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5–24), London: The Falmer Press. 33. Rennie, D. L. (2012). Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics. Psychological Methods, 17(3), pp. 385-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029250 34. Rowlands, B. H. (2005). Grounded in practice: Using interpretive research to build theory. The Electronic Journal of Business Research, 3(1), pp. 81-92. 35. Sawyer, R.K. (2008). Optimising learning: Implications of learning sciences research. CERI: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 36. Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 37. Smith, D. (2002). Hermeneutic Scholar. In M. P. Wolfe, & C. R. Pryor (Eds.), The mission of the scholar: Research and practice, a tribute to Nelson Haggerson (p. 183200), New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 38. Smith, D. G. (1991). Hermeneutic Inquiry: The hermeneutic imagination and the pedagogic text. In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp. 187-210), New York, NY: State University of New York Press. 39. Smith, D. G. (2010). Hermeneutic inquiry. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (Vol. 1, pp. 432-436), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 40. Smith, J. (2007). Hermenutics, human sciences and health: Linking theory and practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 2(1), pp. 3-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482620601016120

88 | JSRP

Lawrence Muganga

41. St. George, S. (2010). Applied interpretation: A review of Interpretive Description by Sally Thorne. The Qualitative Report, 15(6), pp. 1624-1628. 42. Tan, H., Wilson, A., & Olver, I. (2009). Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation: An instrument of data interpretation in hermeneutic phenomenology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), pp. 1-15. 43. Weber, S. J. (1986). The nature of interviewing. Phenomenology + Pedagogy , 4(2), pp. 65-72. 44. Wu, C. J., & Chen, S. L. (2005). Interpretive research: An assessment and relevance in nursing. Tzu Chi Nursing Journal, 4(4), pp. 8-13.