Meeting July 13th

At PHAR on 13^th July we discussed the ‘Description-Interpretation Controversy’ as referred to by Dahlberg and Dahlberg (2004) in their paper ‘Description vs. interpretation – a new understanding of an old dilemma in human science research’¹. This so-called controversy speaks to a long-standing philosophical tension regarding our ability to ever purely describe experience aside from our own interpretations, or whether all description involves a degree of interpretation. Drawing on Merleau-Ponty’s reading of Husserl’s intentionality, the authors argue that “meaning is at once both discovered and created” (p. 267), thereby taking a middle ground approach to the description-interpretation dichotomy. Our task as researchers then, is not to interpret, but to see what is said, but unsaid; to look between the visible and the invisible. The group discussed whether, in drawing out implicit meanings, we can ever avoid interpretation. This was followed by consideration of whether we, as individuals can ever ‘understand’ another person’s experience and, the implications this hold for qualitative research.

Another key theme raised for debate was whether it is possible or indeed desirable to ‘bracket’, that is, completely set aside our preconceptions of the world to see or describe the phenomenon under study as if for the first time, without it being coloured by pre-existing understandings, cultural or historical interpretations. The notion of ‘bridling’ is suggested by Dahlberg and Dahlberg as one alternative to bracketing which encourages researchers to accept their pre-conceptions, but to gain control of them, rather than being blindly and unknowingly led by them. This concept, the group felt was well described and helpful for conducting research.  

A general critique of the paper was the lack of depth given to some key concepts that seemed to be fleetingly introduced by the authors with little acknowledgement of their impact on the argument or the reader.

¹Dahlberg, K.M.E. and Dahlberg, H. K. (2004) Description vs. interpretation – a new understanding of an old dilemma in human science research Nursing Philosophy, 5, 268-273