Interpretative Research Paradigms: Points of Difference Nevan Wright and Erwin Losekoot Auckland University of Technology (AUT) Auckland, New Zealand nevan.wright@aut.ac.nz erwin.losekoot@aut.ac.nz Abstract: This paper outlines the background to the debate surrounding positivisitic and phenomenological re- search and the growing consensus of a mixed methods approach. It explains the increasing popularity of inter- pretative methods but recognises growing concern about the lack of rigour by some researchers in using these methods. In the move from positivism to interpretivism the two main interpretive approaches are symbolic interac- tionism and hermeneutic phenomenolism, but these terms are not synonymous. It explains symbolic interaction- ism and the fact that it is context specific and dependent on the environment in which the research is taking place, recognising that humans are best understood in relation to their environment. Examples are given of cur- rently acceptable practices that were once prohibited and vice versa. It then outlines hermeneutic phenomenol- ogy’s origins and why it is so popular with marketing academics and others. The tradition of ‘textual analysis’ now needs to be expanded to include online and multi-media materials. This paper highlights the differences between what may be reported happened and what actually did occur. Hermeneutics, it is argued, aims to find out what happened, but this is always interpreted through the dasein of the researcher. Symbolic interactionism, on the other hand, focuses not on what happened, but why. The authors warn, however, that one of the most popular tools of such research, participant observation, may find itself compromised as the presence of the observer may well influence the events they are observing. In conclusion, the authors recommend that phenomenological re- searchers consider using a combination of hermeneutic and symbolic interactionism research in order to not only understand what actually happened in a social environment, but also what it meant to those experiencing the event. This cannot ever totally exclude the life world of the researcher from their interpretation of the events they are studying, but it should at least allow a more accurate representation of what was observed. Key words: interpretivism, symbolic interactionism, hermeneutic phenomenology, mixed methods 1. Introduction As academic researchers have started to take a more nuanced view of research and moved from a positivist perspective to a more intepretivist perspective, it is important to consider the two main inter- pretive approaches of symbolic interactionism and hermeneutic phenomenology. After clarifying the difference between quantitative and qualitative research, this paper considers the advantages of a mixed methods approach and then outlines the differences between symbolic interactionism and hermeneutic phenomenology. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these various approaches for researchers active in the business and management fields. Phenomenological research, or qualitative research as it is popularly more known, can be regarded as the opposite of positivistic research (often referred to as quantitative research). Words associated with positivistic research are quantitative, objective, scientific, experimentalist, and traditional. Propo- nents of the positivistic approach assert that as their results can be measured, before and after and over time (longitudinal) that their research is objective and can be proved. Cresswell (1994) drawing on a study of the literature of research methods provided a list of assumptions for each approach. A summary of his findings is: Quantitative Research Quantitative research is objective and singular with the researcher being independent from the sub- ject being researched and is thus unbiased. The researcher will use an impersonal voice, and by deduction will be able to determine cause and effect. Results will be accurate and reliable and will be able to be validated. The inference being that qualitative research is none of these things: it is NOT objective, and unbi- ased, the researcher will NOT be independent, and results will NOT be accurate or reliable. In the title of a subsequent book Cresswell added the words mixed methods alongside qualitative, and quantita- tive for research design, (Cresswell, 2003). In this book he is at pains to extol the virtues of a mixed methods approach thus recognising the move in research thinking away from a polarised “quant or 416