American Behavioral Scientist

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on The Virtual Advisor

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by RICHARDSON, F. C.
Right arrow Articles by FOWERS, B. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41, No. 4, 465-495 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764298041004003

Interpretive Social Science

An Overview

FRANK C. RICHARDSON

University of Texas at Austin

BLAINE J. FOWERS

University of Miami

Mainstream social sciences in the 20th century have always been highly fragmented, with considerable isolation among disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and political science and many disconnected islands of theory and research pursued within each field. Today, even more fundamental epistemological questions about the nature of human action or social life and the proper way to explain or understand it are hotly debated and remain quite unresolved. This article argues that it may be helpful broadly to classify diverse approaches to social or human science as (a) explanatory, (b) descriptivist, (c) critical, (d) postmodern/social constructionist, and (e) hermeneutic or interpretive approaches to such inquiry. Every such typology is shaped by its own epistemological ideals and value commitments. The authors try to make their commitments explicit and explain some of the ways they feel that an interpretive social science or hermeneutic viewpoint offers a relatively coherent view of social inquiry that assists them in incorporating the virtues and avoiding the limitations of other approaches.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
F. C. Richardson and C. B. Guignon
Positive Psychology and Philosophy of Social Science
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2008; 18(5): 605 - 627.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
B. D. Slife and F. C. Richardson
Problematic Ontological Underpinnings of Positive Psychology: A Strong Relational Alternative
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2008; 18(5): 699 - 723.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
F. C. Richardson
Virtue Ethics, Dialogue, and "Reverence"
American Behavioral Scientist, December 1, 2003; 47(4): 442 - 458.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Human RelationsHome page
A. L. Cunliffe
Reflexive Inquiry in Organizational Research: Questions and Possibilities
Human Relations, August 1, 2003; 56(8): 983 - 1003.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
L. Wallach and M. A. Wallach
Experiments in Social Psychology: Science or Self-Deception?
Theory Psychology, August 1, 2001; 11(4): 451 - 473.
[Abstract] [PDF]