While positivist research takes a “reductionist” approach by simplifying social reality into thrifty theories and laws, interpretive research seeks to interpret social reality through the subjective points of view of participants embedded in the context in which reality finds itself. These interpretations are highly contextualized and, of course, less generalized for other contexts. However, since interpretive analysis responds subjectively and sensitively to the experiences and discoveries of the on-board researcher, it is often considered less strict by many positivist (functionalist) researchers. Since interpretive research is based on different ontological and epistemological hypotheses on societal phenomena than on positivist research, positivist conceptions of rigour, such as reliability, internal validity and generalization, do not apply in the same way. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) [16] offer an alternative set of criteria that can be used to judge the rigour of interpretive research. Some researchers see phenomenology as a philosophy rather than a research method. In response to these criticisms, Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) [15] have developed an existential phenomenological research method to guide studies in this area. This method, presented in Figure 10.2, can be grouped into data collection and data analysis phases. During the data collection phase, participants in a social phenomenon are interviewed to capture their experiences and subjective perspectives in relation to the phenomenon studied. Use of expressive language: The documentation of the verbal and non-verbal language of the participants and the analysis of that language are an integral part of the interpreters` analysis. The study must ensure that the story is viewed through a person`s eyes, not a machine, and must represent that person`s emotions and experiences so that the reader can understand that person and relate to them. The use of effigies, metaphors, sarcasm and other linguistic figures is widespread in the analysis of the honour of interpretation.
reliability. Interpretive research can be considered reliable or authentic if two researchers who independently assess the same phenomenon with the same set of evidence independently arrive at the same conclusions or if the same researcher who observes the same phenomenon or a similar phenomenon at different times come to similar conclusions. This concept is similar to that of reliability in positivist research, the agreement between two independent researchers being similar to that of reliability between advisors and the agreement between two observations of the same phenomenon by the same researcher, similar to that of the reliability of the test-retest. To ensure reliability, interpreters must provide adequate information about their interest and social context, so that readers can independently authenticate their interpretive conclusions.