Interpretive research focuses on the observation of cultures, texts, and persons. The goal of interpretive research is to understand specific situations and cultures in naturalistic settings. Interpretive communication study focuses on how humans make meaning through texts, dialog, and rhetoric (Merrigan & Huston, 2015). Often, this includes approaching the understanding of cultures from the subject position, influenced by epistemology. Interpretive researchers focus on specific narratives and qualitative data and do not attempt to generalize. Unlike the behavioral paradigm, the goal here is not to look for overall patterns of communication behavior, but instead to look at the unique characteristics of a specific speech act, phenomenon, medium, or message.
Interpretive research in communication does not use scientific methodology or start with a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Instead, interpretive models start at the site of study: the text, the medium, the speech act, the event, the actors, or the phenomenon (Merrigan & Huston, 2015). Interpretive methods focus on communication texts, and through the text itself address the specific elements of context and texture that shape the text being studied.
Fields that use Interpretive communication research include history, folklore, cultural anthropology, sociology, literary studies, aesthetics, urban studies, and art history. Communication fields rooted in interpretive research include rhetorical criticism, journalism, semiotics/semiology, narrative studies, ethnography of communication, and visual communication.
Interpretive Research Models
Rhetoric remains at the center of research models in the Interpretive Paradigm. Rhetorical criticism is both a dominant method in this paradigm and a guide for other methods framed in this approach. The method of Rhetorical criticism is the process of analyzing a text by looking at the message and attempting to determine its meaning. Most of the communications research methods used in the interpretive paradigm include a rhetorical criticism-style aspect. Interpretation is primarily inductive. This means that research done from this paradigm starts with the assumption that the researcher does not know what they will find as they do the research (Merrigan & Huston, 2015).
Rhetorical Criticism (Plato, 428?-347 B.C.E.)
As we discussed in Module 1, the foundations of communication studies lie in the field of rhetorical studies. Within that field is the method of rhetorical criticism. This method is, in simple terms, an evaluation of a specific communication artifact (message, speech act, actor(s), event, phenomenon) in terms of its meaning and process. The message can be analyzed for its authorial intent, symbolic coding, audience understanding, or any combination of these. While criticism existed prior to Plato, he is often associated with defining the methodology through his critiques of rhetoric and poetry (Plato, 428?-347 B.C.E./2001). Criticism as illustrated by Plato is a critique of the form and function of the rhetorical text as well as a critique of meaning.
Some rhetorical criticism is focused on the quality of the rhetorical text. Other critiques are perspective driven, illustrating how a rhetorical text reflects upon that perspective. Yet they are still methodologically interpretive when they focus on the symbolic construction of the rhetorical text itself. The following image provides an example of Various Rhetorical Methodologies.
Notice how the criticism method focuses on the elements of the text and how it reflects feminist ideological concerns. The ideology applied fits within the critical paradigm, but the method used is interpretive.
Semiotics (Peirce, 1867/1991, 1873/1991; de Saussure, 1916/1959)
Semiotics is process of studying how information is transmitted, received, and interpreted as a process of understanding signs. From a semiotic perspective, all communication is made up of signs and symbols—words, gestures, and images are all signs (Peirce, 1873/1991; de Saussure, 1916/1959). Two notable scholars separately developed these theories in the late nineteenth century, in France (de Saussure) and in the United States (Peirce). Both authors' theories were published posthumously. Each sign represents something that is the source of its meaning (a traffic sign represents the action of stopping). Semiotics looks at what the signs mean, and how they are interpreted and understood with that meaning.
de Saussure (1916/1959) identified a method of identifying elements that make up the composition of all signs. He called the method semiology. He identified to elements of a sign: the signifier which stands in for something and the signified which is the object or idea meant to be conveyed through the signifier. For example, the written word "tree" is signifier that represents the concept of a tree in nature; the concept of a tree is the signified.
Peirce (1867/1991; 1873/1991) established the three categories as sign, object, and interpretant. For Peirce, like de Saussure, the sign is the communicated representation of the object. The interpretant is the person reading the sign and understanding that meaning as referring to the object or providing the signification from de Saussure's model. The object, then, is the subject matter of the interpreted or signified sign.
Ethnographic Methods (Malinowski, 1922)
Ethnography is a method of observational analysis where the researcher is extensively invested in the investigation of a community of people. Ethnographers become participant observers within the community of research, in order to interpret the community from the community's perspective (Malinowski, 1922, 1926, 1927). The method originated in the field of anthropology, primarily as a means of investigating "primitive" cultures. Therefore the observer had to interact with the members of the culture being observed for an extended period of time in order to attempt to understand from an insider's perspective. The ethnographer investigates both people and symbols within the community. Ethnography utilizes interviews and observation of public and private communication displays as a means of investigation.
Take a look at this Poster from a presentation at the EuroCALL 2009 conference in Playa de Gandia, Spain. With this this poster, the author present the possibilities, practicalities and challenges afforded by new Information Communication Technology (ICT) tools to conduct, analyse, and (re)present qualitative research on Computer Assisted Language Learning. This extends and builds on the work by Dicks, Mason, Coffey & Atkinson (2005) who used hypermedia ethnography as a methodology for research in learning environments by bringing the methodology into the “Web 2.0” era.
Notice how the focus of the ethnographic methods described is semiotic: the investigation studies parking signs and how they are interpreted by people, as well as how those same people don't effectively communicate their actual concerns about parking. Participant observation and ethnography can give a more complete picture, including "the hidden obvious" (TedxTalks, 2013), than interviews or survey results alone.
Dramatism (Burke, 1945)
According to Kenneth Burke (1945/1969), Dramatism is the process of understanding the motives of people who produce communication messages. To quote Shakespeare, “All the world is a stage” and Burke argues that people perform their values and ideals. In order to understand what a person’s motive is, you analyze the performance. Burke developed a five-stage process of Dramatistic Analysis, which he called the Pentad. The Pentad guides the researcher through understanding five dramatic elements of a communication act: the Act itself, the Scene, the Agent or actor and the actor’s role, the Agency or ability for the actor to perform, and the Purpose.
Symbolic interactionism theory looks at how social realities exist in the context of human experience, and how symbolic interactions, or people engaging in communication processes reveal the construction of reality and the nature of the people in it (Blumer, 1969a, 1969b). In communication studies, the theory looks at three elements of identity construction or self: thought, language, and meaning (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2018). Our self or identity is composed of and by language: communication narratives create self concept. We are also shaped by our social interactions and the communication we practice within our communities.
Symbolic interactionism is a theory that looks at both communication practices in society, and how society influences communication practice. As such, it is both a communication theory and a theory in sociology. In communication studies, scholars connect the theory to semiotic and rhetorical processes for understanding the construction of social processes. It also lays the groundwork for some components of what is studied as performance theory or performance studies, which in this module are outlined in the critical paradigm.
Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT) (Bormann, 1972)
Symbolic Convergence Theory illustrates how meaning is collectively defined and reified through shared cultural symbols. Symbols are created and shared between groups of people through experience and the symbols become catalysts for shared fantasies and meaning making. In a sense, symbols are used to represent the values, myths, and stories told within a group or culture to create a sense of reality.
An Example of Symbolic Convergence
Two old men are sitting on a park bench. It's obvious that they've known each other for years. One of the men starts reminiscing, "Do you remember Harry?" he asks. The second man responds with a simple, "Yup." The first man starts to ask, "Do you remember that time when he dropped all..." and the second man joins in to finish with, "the ammo!" Both men start to laugh at that statement, and then settle back to discuss their wartime experiences with their old army buddy, Harry.
Now, imagine yourself attempting to join in on that discussion. Could you really join that conversation? Would you understand all of the references and elements of the conversation?
The shared experiences and shared references of these two old men are tied to a shared set of symbols...it would take an act of translation for the symbolic meaning inherent to these men to be transmitted wholly to someone who does not share in their experiences.
Narrative Paradigm Theory (Fisher, 1987)
According to Walter Fisher (1987), "all forms of human communication can be seen fundamentally as stories" (p. 57). Fisher believed that people are essentially storytellers, and therefore communication is primarily done as a process of storytelling. This means that all communication has a plot, characters, and setting, and we use these narrative elements to construct the world around us.
Fisher (1987) explains the key components his theory:
(1) humans are essentially storytellers; (2) the paradigmatic mode of human decision-making and communication is "good reasons" which vary in form among communication situations, genres, and media; (3) the production and practice of good reasons is ruled by matters of history, biography, culture, and character...; (4) rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings. (pp. 7-8)
In other words, the way that people understand and respond to stories is tied to the overarching or master narratives that guide our cultural perspectives, and therefore we are persuaded by stories that fit our cultural, historical, and social framing, or those stories that break from that framing, based on our personal experience and values.
Fisher argues that ultimately, narratives (stories) are more persuasive than arguments. This is because narratives are generally built around pathos (emotion) while arguments ideally are grounded in logos (logic). Good narratives, however, should still appeal to logos, by presenting facts and evidence to support the story. Further, because narratives have a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appeals to audiences' sensemaking abilities, or their ability to apply their own reason and judgement to the facts of story, whereas in a forensic or rational argument audiences may have difficulty making logical connections to their own opinions. This is why many persuasive public arguments are built around a narrative component used to draw audiences in and generate their emotional interest in staying involved with the stories and the stories' underlying rationale and emotionally charged themes, values, and conclusions.
References
Blumer, H. (1969a). The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. Sociology. Thought and Action, 2(2), 147-156.
Bormann, E. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4), 396-407.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Original work published 1945.
Carey J. (1975). A cultural approach to communication. Communication, 2, 1-22.
de Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. (W. Baskin, trans.). New York: Philosophical Library. Original work published 1916.
Fisher, W.R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1, 1-22.
Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2018). A first look at communication, 10th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Malinowski, B. (1926). Crime and custom in savage society. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Malinowski, B. (1927). Sex and repression in savage society. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Merrigan, G. & Huston, C.L. (2015). Communication research methods (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Plato. (2001b). Phaedrus. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 138-168). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. Original work published 428? - 347 B.C.E.
Peirce. C. P. (1991). On the nature of signs. In J. Hoopes, (Ed.). Peirce on Signs (pp. 141-143). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Original work published 1873.
Peirce. C. P. (1991). On a new list of categories. In J. Hoopes, (Ed.). Peirce on Signs (pp. 23-33). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Original work published 1867.
West, T., & Turner, L. (2003). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
