Interpretation and Method Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn

298 ANALYZING DATA

them, most of it was far from earth shattering. I then found out from talking to archivists that

documents may be kept classified for longer than thirty years for a variety of reasons: In many

cases this is simply because no one got around to examining them for release.

DO NOT EMPHASIZE FINDING “SMOKING GUNS”

Although many scholars search for smoking guns, in fact they are rarely uncovered, largely as a

result of the previous two points. What constitutes a smoking gun is also a matter of interpretation

and is subject to how scholars construct the pragmatic criterion of evidence accumulation and

analysis. In other words, whether a piece of evidence appears to make one story or explanation

fall together (and others fall apart) depends on the way in which that story fits into broader narra-

tives concerning what is known about an event. Thus, I found no single statement by government

officials in the United States or Britain that peace movements had nothing at all to do with inter-

war policies of appeasement and isolationism, nor did I find any corresponding statement that

peace movements were responsible for these policies. Yet, even if I had, such a statement could

only be analyzed in conjunction with when and how and by whom it was being made and what

else was going on at the time. As a result, building a case for an alternative interpretation through

the careful buildup of plausible evidence and constructing a logical and coherent understanding

or explanation of events is just as (if not more) useful as finding a smoking gun, since the latter

can never be “proven” to the satisfaction of all.

PUT THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER

Given the dual nature of critical interpretation—that is, outlining the “dominant interpretation(s)”

at issue and deciding whether to construct an alternative narrative or explicitly forego such a

construction—how do scholars go about putting the evidence together? I found that questioning

and reexamination—of my own assumptions, of others’ assumptions and conclusions, of the evi-

dence, and of the views of the actors involved—are absolutely necessary components of analysis.

I believe that this questioning and reexamining is where any move toward distance (if not objec-

tivity) in social scientific analysis occurs. This is the basis of cross-checking, or validity checks,

or testing, or other similar methodological terms, which all connote doing one’s best to ensure

that the evidence used is reliable—meaning that it comes from bona fide sources and is persuasive

and logical according to a criterion of coherence. However, not only the evidence must be checked

and reevaluated; so must the assumptions the researcher brings to the analysis. If the researcher

engages in such questioning and cross-checking of both assumptions and evidence, she can also

better evaluate critically how the evidence “fits” into the dominant narratives constructed by others.

A useful rule of thumb for putting the evidence together using critical interpretation is to outline

the dominant assumptions about a situation or event, how events are packaged to fit these assump-

tions, and how the resulting constructions of knowledge embed power relations between political

and social actors. If the researcher constructs an alternative narrative, he then needs to document,

describe, and analyze the self-understandings of actors and their relevant conditions of action, al-

ways cross-checking the evidence against the interpretations and evidence provided by others.

BE SELF-REFLEXIVE ABOUT ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS

Finally, I believe researchers need to be clear about stating up front our position concerning why

we think our interpretation is better than others, and we need to understand that this position