When Explanation Meets Interpretation: Bridging the Gap in Qualitative Methods

• In Event: Context, Interpretation, and Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

Over the past decade, there has been a debate in political science regarding the existence of a qualitative and a quantitative research culture (Elman 2013; Goertz and Mahoney 2012; Kuehn and Rohlfing 2022). Similarly, within the field of qualitative methods, various authors make a sharp distinction between interpretative and non-interpretative methodological approaches (the latter usually referred to as “naturalist” or “positivist”) (Bevir and Blakely 2018; Goertz and Mahoney 2012; Koivu and Damman 2014; Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2014). Moreover, there is a scarcity of methodological literature from “positivist” qualitative researchers in which they explore ways in which interpretative approaches can contribute to testing causal explanations (for exceptions, see English and Nielsen 2022; Lawler and Waldner 2023). However, there are a number of ways in which both “camps” within qualitative methods can mutually contribute to each other’s goals. Specifically, in this paper we argue that if scholars who use “positivist” qualitative methods like process-tracing and comparative-historical analysis incorporate interpretative approaches, they can improve their testing of theories.

This paper aims to bridge the gap between scholars who employ qualitative methods to test competing explanations and scholars who aim to interpret socially constructed meanings, offering highly contextualized understandings of specific cases. We draw upon insights from qualitative sociologists to argue that in order to explain why actors behave as they do, we need to understand the different social contexts they are embedded in, the organizations they engage with, and the formal and informal institutions they navigate (e.g., Gorski 2018; Reed 2011; Steinmetz 2004). We show that researchers using “positivist” qualitative methods can establish causal links between actors’ perceptions of their situation, their beliefs, motivations, and menu of alternative actions by uncovering the narratives these actors build to make sense of themselves and the world surrounding them. By reconstructing the “layers of meaning” created by actors within specific contexts, “positivist” qualitative scholars can provide explanatory narratives that reveal how sequences of events and mechanisms are causally linked, leading to specific outcomes.

We illustrate our arguments through our own research encompassing two main areas: i) the effects of populist leaders on liberal democracy and ii) the effects of militias’ organizational trajectories on local governance in post-civil war settings. Employing a diverse array of qualitative techniques (over 240 interviews, more than 3000 documents and newspaper articles partially obtained by archival research, participant observation in Los Morochucos, Luricocha, and Llochegua (Peru), and 11 months of fieldwork in different towns in Peru and Buenos Aires, Argentina), we show how the understanding of actors’ values, preferences, and beliefs was necessary to test rival causal explanations on the occurrence of different outcomes. For example, interpreting both populist and anti-populist actors’ motivations and perceptions proves crucial in explaining why the Judiciary blocked Cristina Kirchner’s judicial reform and media law in Argentina between 2007 and 2015. Moreover, a critical examination of how the militia members perceived their organizations is paramount to explain why, within Peru, the comités de autodefensa (rural militias) persisted and contributed to local governance in Llochegua while their disappearance led to lower levels of local governance in Los Morochucos.

Authors

• Benjamin Garcia Holgado, University of Delaware

• Nicolas Taccone, Brown University