Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:14:46.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defending Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Mark Bevir and
R. A. W. Rhodes
Mark Bevir*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1950, USA
R. A. W. Rhodes*
Affiliation:
Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra ACT0200, Australia
*
E-mail: mbevir@berkeley.edu
E-mail: Rhodes@coombs.anu.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An interpretive approach to political science provides accounts of actions and practices that are interpretations of interpretations. We develop this argument using the idea of ‘situated agency’. There are many common criticisms of such an approach. This article focuses on eight: that an interpretive approach is mere common sense; that it focuses on beliefs or discourses, not actions or practices; that it ignores concepts of social structure; that it seeks to understand actions and practices, not to explain them; that it is concerned exclusively with qualitative techniques of data generation; that it must accept actors' own accounts of their beliefs; that it is insensitive to the ways in which power constitutes beliefs; and that it is incapable of producing policy-relevant knowledge. We show that the criticisms rest on both misconceptions about an interpretive approach and misplaced beliefs in the false idols of hard data and rigorous methods.

Keywords

interpretationmeaningsituated agencyqualitative methods

Information

Type
Research
Information
European Political Science , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2006, pp. 69 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bang, H. and Sørensen, E., (1999), The everyday maker: a new challenge to democratic governance, Administrative Theory and Praxis 21: 225–241.10.1080/10841806.1999.11643381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1971) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Berman, S., (2001), Ideas, norms and culture in political analysis, Comparative Politics 33: 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, R. (1976) The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. (1999) The Logic of the History of Ideas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2003) Interpreting British Governance, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, V., (2002), On some problems with weak intentionalism for intellectual history, History and Theory 41: 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, G. and Gordon, C. and Miller, (eds.)(1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1980) Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D., (1984a), On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme, in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 183–199.Google Scholar
Davidson, D., (1984b), Radical Interpretation, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 125–141.Google Scholar
Dowding, K., (2004), Interpretation, truth and investigation, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6: 136–142 .Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Fay, B. (1975) Social Theory and Political Practice, London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K., (2001), Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics, Annual Review of Political Science 4: 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. and LePore, E. (1992) Holism: A Shopper's Guide, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980) Gordon, C. (ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Gerring, J., (1999), Does ideology matter? a roll-call analysis of key congressional votes, 1833–1992, Journal of Policy History 11: 399–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutting, G. (1989) Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Scientific Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harland, R. (1988) Superstructuralism: The Philosophy of Structuralism and Poststructuralism, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2000) Political Analysis, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Healy, P., (1986), Interpretive policy inquiry: a response to the limitations of the received view, Policy Sciences 19: 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, R.P., (1991), Stories managers tell: why they are as valid as science, Public Administration Review 51: 31–41.10.2307/976634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, B., (1987), Interpretation and the practice of policy analysis, in Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (eds.) Confronting Values in Policy Analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 128–152.Google Scholar
Kass, H. and Catron, B. (eds.) (1990) Images and Identities in Public Administration, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lieberman, R., (2002), Ideas, institutions, and political order: explaining political change, American Political Science Review 96: 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAnulla, S. (2004) ‘Paving the rhodes to post-positivism? a critique of the new interpretive approach to British politics – towards a realist alternative’, paper presented to the 54th Annual Conference of the UK Political Studies Association, University of Lincoln, 6–8 April.Google Scholar
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
McGinn, C., (1977), Charity, interpretation, and belief, Journal of Philosophy 74: 521–535.10.2307/2025795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, W. (eds.) (1979) Interpretive Social Science, Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520340343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, W. (eds.) (1987) Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A., (2002), The constraining power of cultural schemes and the liberal model of beliefs, History of Human Sciences 15: 115–124.Google Scholar
Rein, M. (1973) Social Science and Public Policy, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Rein, M. and Schon, D. (1995) Frame Reflection, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Roe, E. (1994) Narrative Policy Analysis, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, P. and Yanow, D., (2002), “Reading”, “Methods”, “Texts”: How research methods texts construct political science, Political Research Quarterly 55: 457–486 .Google Scholar
Scott, J. and Keates, D. (eds.) (2001) Schools of Thought: Twenty Five Years of Interpretive Social Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C., (1971), Interpretation and the sciences of man, Review of Metaphysics 25: 3–51 .Google Scholar
Van Eeten, M.J.G., Van Twist, M.J.W. and Kalders, P.R., (1996), Van een narratieve bestuurskunde naar een postmoderne beweerkunde?, Bestuurskunde 5: 168–189 .Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1972) Philosophical Investigations, translated by Anscombe, G., Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yanow, D. (1999) Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar