Interpretation and Method Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn

348 ANALYZING DATA

this will influence how we synthesize our analyses and place them in context. Using interpretive

methods can be an iterative process that includes interactions with people in both practitioner and

academic settings. These interactions can be both challenging and enriching. They can also generate

dilemmas. They provide opportunities to develop deeper understandings of the questions we ask,

the data we gather, the analytical approaches we use, and the interpretations we craft about policy

processes.

NOTES

1. Culhane (1981) and Foss (1960) have documented the BLM’s historical focus.


2. I believed it was important to share the findings of the statistical study because, as I gained access for
   my dissertation study, I indicated that I would share my findings. Although the statistical study was not a
   direct part of my dissertation work, it seemed to me that any findings I presented publicly about the agency
   fell into the category of information I should share.


3. These interviews were a subset of a larger group of fifty interviews from my dissertation. Interviews
   quoted below were part of that same set: the interview numbers refer to the numbering system that I used for
   the whole set of interviews for the research project.


4. Mathes and Stevenson (1991) outline eight patterns, or structures, commonly used in technical docu-
   ments. These include what they term four persuasive patterns (persuasion, problem/solution, cause/effect,
   and comparison and contrast) and four informational patterns (analysis, description, process or instructions,
   and investigation).


5. It is also important to recognize that some narratives may take forms other than stories in a traditional
   sense. Roe (1994) notes that some narratives occur as non-stories (for example, a circular argument without
   a beginning, middle, and ending) and counter-stories (an alternative story to the dominant narrative).


6. I extended my analysis to consider the role of arguments in EISs where the focus of analysis is
   development projects and not wilderness designation (the arguments do not take the same form; Ginger
   2000). This consideration of the form of arguments in EISs more generally led to insights into the role that
   EISs serve in framing issues in the context of multiple statutory mandates: “Where mandates conflict, the
   conflict is likely to appear in EISs. Where mandates coincide, EISs provide a process through which the
   environmental protection mandate of another statute can be promoted. This happens as political agendas are
   connected to the analytical reform associated with NEPA, through projection and analysis of the future”
   (Ginger 2000, 307).


7. Miles and Huberman (1994, 275–77) describe reasons to seek advice from informants and provide
   advice on how to do so.