Bridging the gap between research traditions: on what we can really learn from Clifford Geertz

Abstract

Interpretive researchers, also in our field, often refer to Geertz’ work. They focus on taking the natives’ point of view, thick description and reading culture as a text. In this paper, it is argued that these guidelines cannot provide good reason to accept one interpretation of a social phenomenon over any other interpretation. On closer inspection, however, Geertz’ work displays a stronger approach. This approach on important points fits Lakatos’ ideal of sophisticated falsificationism. This reexamination of Geertz’ actual approach urges to reconsider the strict dichotomy that is often made between interpretive and other types of research in Public Administration and Political Science.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.