RE-RECOGNIZING INTERPRETIVE METHODOLOGIES 367367PART IV
RE-RECOGNIZING INTERPRETIVE
METHODOLOGIES IN
THE HUMAN SCIENCES
From an overarching meta-perspective, the debates about methodologies and methods within the
social sciences are an expression of a much broader set of issues—those concerning what might
be called the “work practices” of sociology, political science, anthropology, even economics, and
the various fields of their application, such as planning, public administration, public policy,
communication studies, social work, the health care fields, and management. It is not just that
understanding interpretive methods as a scientific undertaking requires situating the debate within
definitions of “science.” What is at stake are questions of disciplinary identity and practitioner
identity, including the establishment and regulation of membership criteria and boundaries. These
are the concerns of two other fields of inquiry: the sociology of the professions, and social studies
of science (or science studies).
The former, often engaged in the professional schools, asks such questions as, How does a
professional in X field know how to do what she does? In what contexts and settings and through
what processes does such learning take place? How does one craft a professional identity? Many
of the early Chicago School field studies documented professional practices (e.g., H. Becker et al.
1977 [1961]), and these have an affinity with studies of work in general (e.g., Bittner 1990; Blau
1963 [1953]; Crozier 1964; R. Kaufman 1960; Manning 1977; Van Maanen 1978) and with other
studies of workplace socialization and management (e.g., Bailyn 1980; Schein 1978). Social studies
of science have, to date, focused largely on practices in the natural and physical sciences (see, e.g.,
Keller 1985; Kuhn 1970; Latour 1987; Latour and Woolgar 1990; Traweek 1988), with analytic
approaches organized along philosophical, historical, and sociological-anthropological lines.^1
What becomes clear in taking a step back from the minutiae of methods-as-tools argumenta-
tions is that in these debates, the social sciences are reflecting on their own practices, including
their own knowledge-production processes. The “Perestroika” debates in the context of the Ameri-
can Political Science Association are an example of this enactment, focusing as they have not
only on methodological issues but also on journal editorial practices; associational governance;
departmental hiring, retention, and promotion; and curricular issues (see the essays in Monroe
2005). What becomes clear in this context is the extent to which methods currently serve as
identity markers for various fields, including as gatekeepers for doctoral students embarking on
comprehensive exams and dissertation research, graduating Ph.D.s seeking jobs, junior faculty