Interpretivism and AI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.1971-8853/24269Keywords:
Interpretivism, Grounded Theory, Situational Analysis, Qualitative Methods, Computational MethodsAbstract
The meaning of interpretivism is shifting. Its key characteristics — a focus on multiple meanings, the symbolic nature of interaction, the ongoing and performative making of social and material worlds, and the use qualitative methodologies — are being problematized by digitization generally and AI specifically. At the very least, digitization and, thus, quantification, underpins a significant portion of contemporary meaning-making processes and interactions. To understand social life, interpretivism must account for this quantification and, often in turn, needs to use at least some of these tools of quantification for the purpose of achieving the hermeneutic goal of understanding.In the process, the meaning of interpretivism is changing in ways that are often subliminal and thus not clearly accounted for. For example, computational grounded theory asserts that the goal of grounded theory has always been to “measure” meaning. Has it? Having been trained in grounded theory, this characterization does not resonate with me. While measurement may aid interpretation, the goals of these two activities do vary, and we should be clear about their differences.
I will argue that in this era it is crucial that we be careful about how “interpretive” is used because it remains indispensable and is different from measurement. My goal is not to police boundaries, but rather to emphasize the specificity of what qualitative research means. This is necessary to understand how AI is changing research as well as how qualitative research can reconfigure the discussions regarding the meanings of AI.
References
Caliandro, A., Gandini, A., Bainotti, L., & Anselmi, G. (2024). The Platformisation of Consumer Culture: A Digital Methods Guide. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chiew, F. (2022). Comte’s Posthumanist Social Science. Thesis Eleven, 174(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136221098440
Clarke, A.E. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, A.E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. (2018). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Interpretive Turn (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crossen-White, H.L. (2015). Using Digital Archives in Historical Research: What Are the Ethical Concerns for a “Forgotten” individual? Research Ethics, 11(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016115581724
Friese, C., & Clarke, A.E. (2012). Transposing Bodies of Knowledge and Technique: Animal Models at Work in Reproductive Sciences. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711429995
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (pp. 3–32). London: Basic Books.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gray, J., Bounegru, L., & Venturini, T. (2020). “Fake News” as Infrastructural Uncanny. New Media & Society, 22(2), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819856912
Hall, S. (2013). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hall, S., & Stuart, H. (2021). Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. In C. Brunsdon (Ed.), Writings on Media: History of the Present (pp. 247–266). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hine, E.G. (2008). Virtual Ethnography: Modes, Varieties, Affordances. In The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods (pp. 257–270). London: Sage.
Inckle, K. (2015). Promises, Promises: Lessons in Research Ethics from the Belfast Project and “The Rape Tape” Case. Sociological Research Online, 20(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3570
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marres, N. (2020). For a Situational Analytics: An Interpretative Methodology for the Study of Situations in Computational Settings. Big Data & Society 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720949571
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Matthews, C.R. (2025). Doing Good Social Science: Lessons from Immersion, Understanding Social Life and Exploring the In-between. London: Routledge.
Nelson, L.K. (2020). Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729703
Nuyts, N., & Friese, C. (2023). Communicative Patterns and Social Networks between Scientists and Technicians in a Culture of Care: Discussing Morality across a Hierarchy of Occupational Spaces. Soc Cult Geogr, 24(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901976
Plantin, J.C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P.N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure Studies Meet Platform Studies in the Age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553
Small, M.L., & Calarco, J. (2022). Qualitative Literacy: A Guide to Evaluating Ethnographic and Interview Research. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Stein, A. (2010). Sex, Truths, and Audiotape: Anonymity and the Ethics of Exposure in Public Ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(5), 554–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241610375955
Strathern, M. (1992). After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sugiura, L., Wiles, R., & Pope, C. (2017). Ethical Challenges in Online Research: Public/Private Perceptions. Research Ethics, 13(3–4), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650720
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2014). Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Carrie Friese
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
