INTERPRETIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS 331331CHAPTER 19
INTERPRETIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS
Stories and Arguments in Analytical Documents
CLARE GINGER
I am most interested in questions about how people make sense of ambiguous situations and
concepts as they develop and implement public policy. My interest in these kinds of questions, and
my use of interpretive methods, reflect my experience in both applied policy settings and academia.
This experience has occurred in contexts where people piece together various ways of analyzing,
interpreting, and synthesizing what is “known” about environmental issues and possible responses
to them.
Working in agencies at the state level in Massachusetts and at the federal level in the Bureau
of Land Management, I found myself in situations where people came from varied positions and
had distinct stories to tell about the issue at hand. We synthesized these stories, often across
disciplines (e.g., ecology, engineering, public health, law), into plans of action. These experi-
ences emphasized the value and challenges of drawing on multiple approaches to make sense of
an issue and argue for action in government.
As a student in a master’s program in environmental law, I learned how to identify arguments
embedded in judicial opinions through legal case analysis. At the same time, we considered the
nature of scientific knowledge and how it is used in law. Analyzing majority, concurring, and
dissenting opinions in any given case emphasizes the importance of making connections through
arguments, between general principles of law and the facts of the case. It also highlights how
connections can be made in varied ways, leading to divergent conclusions.
As a Ph.D. student in an interdisciplinary program at the University of Michigan, I took
methods classes that included statistics, policy analysis tools, and research paradigms. One
class provided me with experience in gathering and interpreting qualitative data. It opened up
a dialogue that continued beyond the semester. This dialogue informed my use of interpretive
approaches in my research. I also taught technical communications in the engineering school.
Through this experience, I formalized my understanding of structure and argument in techni-
cal documents.
I take a pragmatist’s view about the choices these experiences suggest, finding value in what-
ever methods seem most helpful in responding to the question at hand. Interpretive methods often
provide a very useful way to respond to the kinds of research questions I ask. At the same time, I
see a critical need in the field of environmental policy to work across disciplinary boundaries. As
a result, I spend a fair amount of time thinking about how to create connections between disci-
plines that draw on quite different methodological traditions. Key to creating such connections