The interpretation of global politics: Methods and epistemologies after the event

Date & time

9am Thursday 2 November – 5pm Friday 3 November 2017


The Australian National University


Professor Dvora Yanow, Wageningen University, The Netherlands


For interstate visitors, we offer suggestions for accommodation near ANU.


April Biccum

Presented by School of Politics & International Relations, ANU College of Arts & Social Sciences

The interpretation of global politics: methods and epistemologies after the event

In the era of ‘post-truth’ and electoral outcomes that don’t follow the seductions of quantification (Merry 2016), it might be appropriate to return to discussions of the ‘event’ in the Derridean sense —that which always exceeds calculation and prediction (Derrida 2007).

In the twentieth century, the social sciences turned, and turned again, and the politics of knowledge have remained unsettled. If the twentieth century saw the challenge to classical knowledge paradigms in the form of critical, social, post-structuralist, post-colonial and ‘post-modern’ interventions, the tables were quickly turned by a series of methodological counter-reformations, begun in the mid-century with the Popperian and ‘rational choice’ programs in Anglo-American political science and the growing prestige of economics. Adherents to these broad churches laid down the methodological gauntlet, facilitating a growth industry of texts, handbooks and training manuals for graduate students and researchers, the development of formal methodological organisations, conferences and journals.

This debate clearly designated as ‘interpretivist’ anything not regarded as ‘positivist’ or ‘causal’ social science. Scholars in the ‘interpretivist’ camp, broadly defined, have in turn responded with their own treatises and texts addressing constructivism, hermeneutics, assemblage, and discourse, both within the disciplinary literatures of politics (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2006, Klotz and Lynch 2007, Brady and Collier 2010, Jackson 2011) and well beyond (Pryke, Rose et al. 2003, Law 2004, Latour 2005, Steinmetz, Adams et al. 2005). 

Today, amid the popular appeal of ‘big data’ and the promise of further quantification, similar challenges to the role of interpretation in research are being rehearsed. In turn, the call for pluralism has been heard by disciplinary gatekeepers with the response of ‘mixed methods’. In the context of unprecedented global events, the self-assurance of science in the social sciences may again be on the back foot. The conference, therefore, calls for investigation into the value of interpretation as method, interrogating what it means to ‘interpret’ the political. 

More information can be found on the conference website


  • Professor Dvora Yanow »

    A political/policy/organizational ethnographer and interpretive methodologist, I teach and research topics that take up the generation and communication of knowing and meaning in policy and organizational settings. 

    Dvora is a Guest Professor in Wageningen University’s Department of Social Sciences’ Communication, Philosophy, and Technology Sub-Department (The Netherlands) and am currently exploring state-created categories for race-ethnic identity, immigrant integration policies, and citizen-making practices; research ethics and their regulatory policies; practice studies; and science/technology museums and the idea of science. Interpretive Research Design (2012), with Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, launched our co-edited Routledge Series on Interpretive Methods; our co-edited Interpretation and Method is out in a second edition. 

Research theme: 

Updated:  10 August 2015/Responsible Officer:  College General Manager, ANU College of Law/Page Contact:  Law Marketing Team