Skilda ansatser : skilda tolkningsintentioner

The qualitative method has grown to become an important methodological alternativewithin social science research. The qualitative method can to some extent beregarded as uniform and to some extent as varied. Unity of the qualitative methodmanifests on a higher level of scientific reflection. There are mainly the ontologicaland epistemological assumptions that constitute common foundations for qualitativeresearch.In spite of these common foundations the qualitative method has become increasinglyvaried. Development of qualitative method has resulted in many, more orless, complex methodological procedures, which are well defined and well delimitedin relation to each other. Researchers can today choose from several differentresearch approaches. These approaches have their own specific research purposes,which lead to specific patterns of analysis and the structuring of empirical data. Examplesof such qualitative research approaches are grounded theory, empirical phenomenologyand heuristic research. The development of qualitative method hasalso resulted in a large variation within research approaches. An example of thevariety within the same research approach consists of different variants of empiricalphenomenology, developed by Colaizzi, Van Kaam and Giorgi. Another exampleconsists of two variants of grounded theory, the first one developed by Glaser andthe other one developed by Strauss in cooperation with Corbin.This report focuses on the issues of interpretation, understanding and validity ofqualitative research. The qualitative method is interpretative in its character but caninclude different types of interpretation and understanding in its various qualitativeresearch approaches. Two basic types of interpretation in qualitative research leadto two different kinds of understanding. The first concentrates on interpretative understandingof the direct meaning, which can be communicated consciously. Thedirect meaning can appear both in explicit and implicit form. Explicit meaning iscommunicated more distinctly in a linguistic way and implicit meaning is less distinctlycommunicated in an extra-linguistic way, for example, with the help of metaphorsor anecdotes. The other type of interpretation exceeds the horizon of directmeaning and concentrates on meta-interpretative understanding of non-direct meaning.In this type of interpretation the researcher interprets the meaning with thehelp of an external frame of reference.Depending on the type of interpretation and understanding used, the different validationprocedures can be, more or less, useful for various qualitative research approaches.Meta-interpretative validation is necessary, for example, in phenomeno21graphic and hermeneutical studies for the justification of the researchers interpretationsof non-direct meaning. On the contrary, within empirical phenomenologymeta-interpretative validation is not needed, because phenomenological researchresults only concentrate on interpretative understanding of the direct meaning. Theoreticalvalidation is necessary in most qualitative research approaches, but to variousextents. In contrast to phenomenography or empirical phenomenology, groundedtheory claims full theoretical validation