Interpretivism

 

Arguing for Interpretivism as the Philosophical Foundation of a Mixed Methods Study

Interpretivism, as a philosophical paradigm, foregrounds the significance of meaning-making in human contexts, seeking to understand how individuals interpret and construct their social worlds. This orientation is particularly appropriate for educational research where the focus lies in uncovering how teachers and learners experience, interpret, and act upon curricular innovations, such as the integration of digital accessibility awareness into the classroom. Although mixed methods designs are often associated with pragmatism, this does not preclude an interpretivist foundation; rather, interpretivism can meaningfully guide the qualitative dimensions of a sequential mixed methods design, ensuring that the complexity of individual perspectives is retained and understood within their social and cultural contexts (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Hammersley, 2013).

Interpretivism assumes that reality is socially constructed and that knowledge is co-produced through interaction between the researcher and participants (Schwandt, 2000). This is essential in studies involving teacher readiness, pedagogical decision-making, and learner engagement, where individual beliefs, professional identities, and contextual variables deeply influence educational practices (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). For example, when teachers reflect on learner responses to accessibility content, or collaboratively imagine how new knowledge might be integrated into the curriculum, they are engaging in interpretive acts shaped by values, experiences, and institutional constraints—all of which cannot be captured adequately through a positivist or purely functionalist lens.

While mixed methods research often draws on pragmatism (Morgan, 2007), recent scholars argue that interpretivist mixed methods studies are not only possible but desirable when the research aims to link rich understandings of social meaning with broader patterns (Greene & Hall, 2010; Hitchcock & Onwuegbuzie, 2020). In this view, quantitative elements—such as teacher surveys—can still serve an interpretive purpose: not as generalisable fact but as a springboard for deeper inquiry into how and why teachers respond in particular ways. Quantitative data, within an interpretivist frame, are not seen as neutral representations of reality but as partial, situated expressions of professional practice that invite further contextual exploration (Maxwell, 2012).

Moreover, interpretivism aligns with the epistemological aims of exploring pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987), which is inherently constructed and situated. Understanding how teachers know, perceive, and enactcurriculum involves accessing their lived experiences, interpretive reasoning, and classroom narratives—all of which require qualitative methods underpinned by interpretivist assumptions (Loughran, 2006; van Driel et al., 1998). When these qualitative insights are framed within a sequential mixed methods design, they gain additional depth by being linked to wider patterns of response and situated within a broader inquiry.

Interpretivism also supports a responsive and emergent design, allowing the researcher to follow unexpected themes that arise in teacher interviews, focus groups, or observations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This flexibility is particularly important in research on emergent curriculum areas, such as digital accessibility, where pre-defined frameworks may not yet fully capture the scope of practice or understanding. An interpretivist stance thus ensures that the study remains sensitive to context, language, and the dynamic process of meaning-making.

In sum, an interpretivist philosophical position is most appropriate for a mixed methods study that seeks to explore complex educational phenomena by combining the broad scope of survey data with the rich, contextualised insight of qualitative methods. Interpretivism legitimates the use of diverse data to understand meaning as constructed by participants within their specific cultural and institutional environments, ensuring the study remains attuned to the lived realities of those involved in teaching and learning (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Yin, 2014).

---

References

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research(4th ed.). Sage.

Greene, J. C., & Hall, J. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119–144). Sage.

Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Academic.

Hitchcock, J. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2020). Developing mixed methods crossover analysis designs. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818822810

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Sage.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.