ANALYZING DATA 211elsewhere (see, e.g., Feldman 1995; Yanow 2000; the latter also includes the analysis of built
space, which has been developed further in this volume).
One of the areas not included here is feminist methods, although there are many areas of
overlap between arguments for the existence of a distinctively feminist mode of doing research
and the interpretive approaches and philosophies represented here. Part of the reason for this
omission is that we felt we could not include them without reproducing, rather fully, the debate
internal to feminist theorizing as to whether, in fact, there are such things as “feminist” methods
distinct from other forms of method (see, e.g., Reinharz 1992). The overlaps, to us, appear in an
orientation toward interviewing that is conversational, in which the researcher is revealing of
herself; in writing, in which, similarly, the author is present and reflective; and in the refusal to
treat the knowing “subject” and the knowledge he generates as somehow objective and universal.
As Kelly (2003, 179, n. 5) notes, the implication of the insight that “all knowledge is constructed
from a particular standpoint” is that observation is theory laden. There are, in other words, no
“facts” without a theory that organizes them, renders them relevant, and labels them as such.
This point links to the methodological pluralist’s insistence that methods do not stand alone:
One needs to know the character of one’s evidence and in what ways one wants to marshal it
before one picks up one’s tools—lest, wielding a hammer always and only, one renders the world
the proverbial nail; and one’s presuppositions, known tacitly or explicitly, and theoretical fram-
ing incline one toward evidentiary sources of a certain character. In other words, what will consti-
tute acceptable and persuasive “proof” is rendered by the type of evidence and its manipulation
with appropriate tools.
A standpoint presupposition links, as well, to the requirement not only to reflect on one’s stand-
point and to make it explicit—hence, the presence of the researcher in her writing—but also to
recognize the limitations of claims to universal knowledge and the partial character of all knowl-
edge. This entails an awareness of the politics of knowledge and has led many feminist theorists and
empirical researchers alike to focus on making the silences speak: deconstructing texts, events, and
official presentations to show what is left out and what parties are silent or have been silenced (see,
e.g., Devault 1990; DiPalma and Ferguson 2003; Yanow 2003b). The perceived humanity of both
researchers and researched—the possibility of their fallibility—leads to a humility, whether of claims
or of conduct, something that William James celebrated a century ago (Connolly 2005, chapter 3;
see also Yanow 1997). Furthermore, it leads feminist researchers to leave open the possibility of
untidiness and ambiguity, without glossing them over, and to foster methods that share control over
interviewing and other processes, that recognize those being studied as collaborators in the con-
struction of “findings” (see, e.g., Behar 1993; Stanley 1990), and that leave the research process
open to change and even to “disruption” on the part of research subjects.^5
Other topics that are not represented here include action research, actor network theory, con-
versation analysis, critical content analysis (although there are other examples of close readings
of texts), discourse analysis explicitly building on Foucault’s linking of knowledge to power,
deconstruction building on Derrida’s analysis of language, an explicitly Foucauldian genealogi-
cal analysis, grounded theory, poststructuralist analysis, and pragmatics, to name but a few of the
wide range of analytic methods informed by interpretive methodologies.^6 At the same time, we
note that many of these approaches overlap. One might construct a taxonomy of “discourse analy-
ses” that includes predicate analysis (Milliken 1999), metaphor analysis (Yanow 1992a, 2000),
deconstruction, genealogy, narrative analysis (see, e.g., Feldman et al. 2004 for one version), and
so on—any method that problematizes the knowledge/power relationship. Many of these meth-
ods have their own philosophical sources—the reading practices issue, again—and separate cita-
tion traditions; others are used in various overlapping ways.