INTERPRETIVE SOCIOLOGY

Abstract

One of non-positivism paradigm is the paradigm interpretive. An alternative approach

is derived from the German philosophers who focus on the role of language, interpretation
and understanding of the social sciences. This paradigm has a base thought that the rules that
apply in the natural sciences (natural science) cannot be applied to the social sciences. The
nature of this paradigm believe that social reality consciously and actively built by
individuals so that each individual has the potential to interpret every action performed. In
other words, a social reality is the result of the formation of a series of interactions between
social actors in a particular environment. This study aims to provide an understanding of the
interpretive paradigm and structure of this paradigm. Several paradigms that will be
discussed are paradigm interpretive, hermeneutic, solipsism, phenomenology and
ethnomethodology.

Introduction

Social science research is pervasive, and it affects your daily life as well as that of
your family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Findings from social science studies appear
on broadcast news programs, in magazines and newspapers, and on many Web sites and
blogs. They cover dozens of topics and fields: law and public safety, schooling, health care,
personal and family relations, political issues, and business activities as well as international
and social trends. We use the knowledge and principles of social science research, directly or
indirectly, as we engage in relationships with family, friends, and coworkers, participate in
community life or public policy, and make daily decisions in business, professional life, and
health care.

Social research is not just for college classrooms and professors; high school teachers,
parents, business owners, advertisers, managers, administrators, officials, service providers,
health care professionals, and others use its findings and principles. They use them to raise
children, reduce crime, manage health concerns, sell products or services, digest news events,
and so forth. There is little doubt about the importance and centrality of social science
research. Despite scattered criticism to the contrary, research is highly relevant for
understanding social life generally and to the decisions you make each day (Neuman, 2014).

Reading and doing social research can be exciting: It is a process of discovery in

which we learn many new things. Doing social science research requires persistence, personal
integrity, tolerance for ambiguity, interaction with others, and pride in doing top-quality
work. It also requires logical thinking, carefully following rules, and repeating steps over and
again. In the research process, we join theories or ideas with facts in a systematic way. We
also use our creativity. To conduct a study, we must organize and plan. We need to select
research methods appropriate to a specific question. We must always treat the study
participants in an ethical or moral way. In addition, we need to communicate to others how
we conducted a study and what we learned from it.

Learning about the approaches is not simple. When you read reports on research
studies, the author rarely tells you which approach was used. Many professional researchers
are only vaguely aware of the alternatives. They learn an approach’s principles and
assumptions indirectly as they receive training in research methods (Steinmetz 2005a:45).
The approaches operate across the social sciences and applied areas and make a very big
difference in the way to do research.

Each approach makes significance advances to knowledge on its own terms. As Roth
and Mehta (2002) argued, we can study the same social events using alternative approaches
and learn a great deal from each approach used. Each offers a different perspective or
viewpoint not only on the social event we wish to study but also on the most important
questions, the types of relevant data, and the general way to go about creating knowledge.

Those who take an objective view of social science believe that the world is built
upon regularities and causal relationships that can be identified and then verified or falsified
by building a common stock of knowledge. The opposite on this continuum of social science
assumptions is subjectivity. Those who take a subjective view believe that the social world is
a relativistic context that can only be understood by those who are actively engaged in the
phenomena of study. Assumptions about the nature of society range from an interest in issues
of order and regulation to an interest in issues of social conflict and change. The order
dimension is characterized by concerns with explaining the nature of social order and
equilibrium—identifying the patterns of regularity that create and maintain order. The
conflict dimension is characterized by an interest in exploring problems associated with
conflict, coercion, and change. The intersection of these two continua results in four primary
domains of study with respect to organizations—functionalism, interpretivism, radical
humanism, and radical structuralism. Because of the broad nature of the underlying
assumptions for this framework, theoretical perspectives that have gained more recent
popularity, such as postmodernism and poststructuralism, can still be understood.

In the next section, will describe a commonly accepted framework for epistemological
paradigms of organizations (Burrell & Morgan, 1979) that can be used as a lens for
understanding the nature and implications of creativity literature. Several paradigms that will
be discussed are paradigm interpretive, hermeneutic, solipsism, phenomenology and
ethnomethodology.

Interpretivism

We can trace interpretive social science to the German sociologist Max Weber (1864–
1920) and German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911). In his major work Einleitung
in die Geisteswissenshaften (Introduction to the Human Sciences) (1883), Dilthey argued that
there were two fundamentally different types of science: Naturwissenschaftand
Geisteswissenschaft. The former rests on Erklärung,or abstract explanation. The latter is
rooted in an empathetic understanding, or verstehen, of the everyday lived experience of
people in specific historical settings. Weber argued that social science should study social
action with a purpose. He embraced verstehen and felt that we must learn the personal
reasons or motives that shape a person’s internal feelings and guide decisions to act in
particular ways.

About the characteristics of this interpretive sociology, Chua (1988, p. 60), write as
follows:

“This philosophical tradition focuses on the constructive and interpretive action of

people, whether it be their ability to organize sense data through forms of a priori
knowledge (Kantian transcendentalism), or as reflected in the essentials of their
experiences (Hussrelian phenomenology). In sociology, the tradition has given birth
to a confusing number of descendants, with bewildering names such as "existential
phenomenology", "cognitive sociology", "interactionism" and "ethnomethodology" ”.

With reference to the characteristics interpretivism given Chua (1988, p. 60), there are
important points to be identified, namely that tradition interpretivism this emphasis on
constructing (constructivist) and interpret the actions of the community, either through
knowledge that has been previously owned as well as are reflected through their experiences
(actor or actors) that are involved in social action (Djamhuri, 2011).

Interpretive social science concerns how people interact and get along with each
other. In general, the interpretive approach is the systematic analysis of socially meaningful
action through the direct detailed observation of people in natural settings in order to arrive at
understandings and interpretations of how people create and maintain their social worlds.

For interpretive researchers, the goal of social research is to develop an understanding

of social life and discover how people construct meaning in natural settings. The interpretive
social science researcher wants to learn what is meaningful or relevant to the people he or she
is studying and how they experience everyday life. To do this, he or she gets to know people
in a particular social setting in great depth and works to see the setting from the viewpoint of
the people in it. He or she tries to know in the most intimate way the feelings and
interpretations of people being studied, and to see events through their eyes.

The interpretive perspective is the combination of subjectivity and order (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979). Interpretivists are interested in understanding the nature of the world as it
exists; because they believe that reality can only be revealed by those engaged in the
experience, of creativity for example, interpretivists use methods that can capture subjective
experiences of the individual participants. In fact, Burrell and Morgan argue that the
interpretive paradigm in its purest sense “does not allow for the existence of ‘organizations’
in any hard and concrete sense…from the standpoint of the interpretive paradigm,
organizations simply do not exist” (Burrell & Morgan,1979, p. 260). The definitions of
creativity that fall under the interpretive heading include both process-based and outcome-
based definitions that are focused on the individual’s experiences with creativity within the
organization. Definitions that fall into the interpretive category, affirm the Burrell and
Morgan assertion that the interpretive paradigm rejects the analysis of structures
“independent of the minds of men” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 260). The interpretive
paradigm will, however, allow for the concept of an organization insofar it is useful in
helping individuals “make sense of their world” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 260).

It is important to note the distinction Burrell and Morgan make with regards to the
interpretive paradigm, namely that it is by nature highly subjective and qualitative. Therefore,
a purely interpretive view of creativity will be concerned primarily with the experiences of
the individual, or the creativity process, rather than the product of the individual’s creativity,
or the creativity outcome. In the Burrell and Morgan model, the interpretive paradigm is also
closer to the sociology of regulation end of the continuum than the sociology of radical
change end of the continuum, which makes this paradigm one of examining subjective
experiences within the world as it currently exists. Of interpretive sociologists, Burrell and
Morgan explain that “the commitment of the interpretive sociologists to the sociology of
regulation is implicit rather than explicit. Their ontological assumptions rule out a direct
interest in the issues involved in the order conflict debate as such” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979,
p. 31).

Another feature that is also important from this perspective, is the perspective on the
social sciences that nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979). This means that the world or the social phenomenon is believed to be a series
of social processes that appear instantly (emergent) as a result of the interaction (engagement)
actors. Therefore, this sociological perspective believe that social reality in fact nothing more
than an assumption networks (perception) who have received joint (shared) by the
perpetrators is intersubjective, thus giving a meaning as agreed. In view of this perspective,
true objectivity is an impossibility. Objectivity, if any, no more than intersubjectivity, an
agreement meaning that comes from the interaction between subjects who subjectively.

Hermeneutics

Interpretive social science is related to hermeneutics, a theory of meaning that

originated in the nineteenth century. The term comes from a god in Greek mythology,
Hermes, who had the job of communicating the desires of the gods to mortals. It “literally
means making the obscure plain” (Blaikie, 1993:28). The humanities (philosophy, art history,
religious studies, linguistics, and literary criticism) use hermeneutics. It emphasizes
conducting a very close, detailed reading of text to acquire a profound, deep understanding.
Text can mean a conversation, written words, or pictures. We conduct “a reading” to discover
deeper, richer meanings that are embedded within the text. Each reader brings her or his
subjective experience to the text. When studying the text, the researcher/reader tries to absorb
or get inside the viewpoint the text presents as a whole and then to develop an understanding
of how each of the parts relates to the whole. In other words, true meaning is rarely obvious
on the surface. We can reach it only through a detailed examination and study of the text, by
contemplating its many messages, and seeking the connections among its parts.
 Hermeneuticist argue that the act of understanding cannot be separated from
knowledge that occurs in the process of understanding, thus knowledge has an existential and
dialogic character. Moreover they dispute the subject - object polarity present in traditional
scientific research (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000). This dialogic way of knowing requires the
interpreter to surface his or her self-understandings, preconceptions, and prior knowledge
(Bohman 1991) and to critically examine their responses to what is strange to them.

A general description of the definition of "hermeneutics" was expressed also by

Zygmunt Bauman, as an attempt to explain and trace messages and a basic understanding of a
spoken or written unclear, blurry, dim, and contradictory, causing confusion for the listener
or reader (Faiz 2003: 22). Departing from the Greek myth, the word "hermeneutic" is defined
as "the process of changing something or to understand the situation of ignorance", especially
this process involves mediation of language because language is the most perfect in the
process (Palmer, 2003: 15). According to Palmer (2003: 15-36), mediation and the process of
bringing the message "in order to understand" that is associated with the god Hermes was
contained in three basic forms of meaning Herme-neuein and Herme-neia. Three forms of
the use of the verb Herme-neuein, as follows:

1. Hermeneuein as "to express" (revealed), "to assert" (assert), or "to say" (states). This
is related to the function of "notification" of Hermes
2. Hermeneuein as "to explain" (explained), the interpretation as an explanation
emphasizes the aspect of discursive understanding. Interpretation is more focused on
explanation rather than dimensional expressive interpretation. The most essential of
the words is not to say something, to explain something, rationalize it, and make it
clear. One can express the situation without having to explain it, express it is an
interpretation, and explain it is also a form of interpretation.
3. Hermeneuein as "to translate". In this dimension "to interpret" (interpret) means "to
translate" (translate) which is a special form of basic interpretive process "brought
something to be understood". In this context, a person bringing what alien, distant and
incomprehensible to the mediation of one's own language, such as Hennes god,
became a translator between the world's media with the world. "Translation" makes us
aware of the way that the actual words form the world view, even our perceptions;
that language is a real treasury of cultural experience, we exist in and through this
medium, we can see through the vision.
 "Hermeneutics" is always associated with the three elements in the activity of
interpretation, namely (1) a sign, a message, or a text which is the source or material in the
interpretation associated with the message brought by Hermes; (2) intermediate or interpreter
(Hermes); (3) the delivery of the message by the intermediary in order to understand and
come to that accept (Faiz, 2003: 21).

As a method of interpretation, "Hermeneutics" is not only associated with the text

faced closed doors, but the interpretation of the text is done by opening up to the surrounding
texts. In accounting research, the ability of researchers to interpret the meaning that lies
behind the accounting numbers in the financial statements are key in the hermeneutical
method for understanding the true reality. In line with this understanding, Faiz (2003: 11)
refer to it as "considering the horizons surrounding the text, the horizon text, horizon author,
and the horizon of the reader. By considering the three horizon is expected an attempt of
understanding or interpretation into reconstruction and reproduction meaning of the text.

That is, in addition to track how a text was presented by its author and charge what
enters and wants to incorporate into the text the author made also trying regenerates the
meaning according to the situation and the current state of the text is read or understood.
Hermeneutics as a method of interpretation must pay attention to three things as fundamental
components, namely text, context, and then perform contextualization. If history is pulled
back, departs from the terms which are assumed to god Hermes and traced to the classical
Greek era, at the time of Aristotle was already interested in the interpretation (interpretation).
Aristotle once said in his Peri Hermeneias (DeInterpretatione) that "The words we say is a
symbol and experience of our mental and words that we write is the symbol of the words that
we say that. As someone who does not have a common written language with others, so he
does not have the same spoken language to another. However, the experiences of mental
symbolize directly it is the same for everyone, as the experiences of our imagination to
describe something "(Sumaryono, 1999: 24) , History records that the term "hermeneutics" in
notion as "hermeneutics" began to emerge in the 17th century. This term is understood in two
senses, namely hermeneutics as a set of methodological principles of interpretation and
hermeneutics as philosophical excavation of the nature and unavoidable condition of
activities to understand (Palmer, 2003: 8).

Hermeneutics at the beginning of its development is more likely as the movement of

exegesis among the church, then developed into a "philosophy of interpretation" developed
by FDE Schleiermacher. He is regarded as the "Father of Hermeneutics Modem" because
standardize hermeneutics become a common method of interpretation that is not limited to
the scriptures and literature. Then, Wilhelm Dilthey developed a hermeneutics as a
foundation for human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften). Afterwards, Hans-Georg Gadamer
develops hermeneutics into a method of philosophy, especially in his famous book Truthand
Method. Furthermore, hermeneutics further developed by philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur,
Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. This hermeneutic developments penetrated into
various scientific studies. The science that is closely related to the study of hermeneutics is
the science of history, philosophy, law, literature, and science of humanity. Even
hermeneutics experienced rapid development as a "tool to interpret" the various scientific
studies, however, the greatest services are in the field of history and critics text, especially
holy book (Faiz, 2003).

Dimension of Hermeneutics

There are two major dimensions in hermeneutics that intensionalism hermeneutics

and hermeneutic gadamerian. Two of these dimensions has methodological implications are
very different.

1. Intentionalism hermeneutics
Intensionalism that begins characters Schleiermacher (1768-1834), known also as the
father of modern Hermeneutics and forwarded by Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) with
Hermeneutics methodical, Edmund Husserl (1889-1938) with this phenomenologist
Hermeneutics, to Martin Heidegger (1889- 1976) the dialectic hermeneutics. Thought
for intentional Hermeneutics is that the meaning of the word has existed behind the
word itself. Meaning has been waiting for, and stay found by interpreters. The
meaning of the existing since taken the author or authors of the text so wait
interpretation interpreter. "Behind a word, there exists the meaning", so roughly
expression of the intentionalism hermeneutics. Therefore, to understand the meaning
of words, sentences or even text to be traced from producer intentions. Therefore,
only the producer's own assumption most people know what mean words spoken or
written.
According Intentionalism Hermeneutics, the meaning is the intention or willingness
embodied in an act or products (such as text), so that the meaning is already there and
just waiting to be interpreted. This understanding is based on the meaning of
 "meaning" (meinen), which signifies: the meaning of a text, follow, relationships, and
so on is something that exists in the minds of producers, which is then discharged
through an act like composing text. That is, the meaning was there and waiting to be
understood. Meaning only from the text producer activity, not of other people's
activities, including the activities of interpretation interpreter. This, requires the reader
and interpreter to immerse themselves in the world of the text that he read. Here, the
interpreter can capture the author's conception of the fact situation, beliefs, and
desires. In other words, the interpreter must find the reasons actors behave as shown
2. Gadamerian Hermeneutics
Intentionalism Hermeneutics then challenged hard enough since Hans-Georg
Gadamer (1900- 2002) propose a very different idea. Meaning, according to Gadamer,
lies not in instensi producer, but the reader itself. Meaning it was not there when a
word is spoken or written, and soon emerged when the word is heard or read. "In front
of a word, there exists a meaning (or even meanings)", so to speak said the
Gadamerian hermeneutics. This concept is finding its culmination point in Gadamer
stating that once the text is present in the public space, he has been living with his
own breath. Hermeneutics is not acting unveil the desired objective meaning authors,
but it is to produce meanings that focuses entirely on the condition of historicity and
sociality readers. This idea by itself refusing a reality behind the phenomenon, the
reality of the source, the ultimate reality. This hermeneutic considers that the meaning
sought, constructed and reconstructed by the interpreter context interpreter so that the
meaning of the text is never raw, and the ever-changing depending on the reader. For
example, to obtain the meaning of Anwar's famous poem "I", one is not possible to
contact Anwar because he had died. Anyway, if the text now reads the poem is
actually no longer to the public or the current generation of poetry was created, but for
the current generation. Gadamer's idea forwarded by Jurgen Habermas (L: 1929) with
a critical hermeneutics, Paul Ricoeur (L: 1913) and Jacques Derrida (L: 1930) with
deconstructionism of Hermeneutics.
It should be recognized that the concept of this thinking has shifted in a revolutionary
treatment of the text. Meaning of the text is no longer limited to the desired message
author, because the text is open to the meaning of its readers. Thus, interpretation is a
productive activity, giving meaning or rather actualize the potential meaning in the
text.
Solipsism

Solipsism is derived from the Latin is a solus which means 'alone' and ipse meaning
'themselves'. This understanding is seen coming from the thought Gorgias, a Sophist. In the
17th century and into the 18th, sometimes the term is used in a moral sense to refer to the
views of Selfishness. Solipsism is the view that a person's personal experience was the only
fact that can be trusted. In other words, one does not have grounds to believe anything but
himself.

Solipsism in the context of philosophy evolved in tandem with the problem of mind
and body were first conceived Descartes. By saying "I" as the only entity that thinks, then
Descartes dichotomy between the "I" with the outside world. 'Thinking' (res cogitan) as the
only certainty in the philosophy of Descartes, made a separate human beings from the world
outside itself (res extensa). How can we bridge the gap between subjects who think the world
outside ourselves? Or, how self-awareness can also be raised consciousness other subjects?
Are the claims of objectivity receive adequate epistemological interpretation?

Solipsism was initiated by Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753) took the view that the world
has no ontological separation with what we think. Burrell and Morgan (1979, p 239) explains
that “ontologically, it has no existence beyond the sensations which he perceives his mind
and body”. Burrell and Morgan (1979, p 239-240) also stated that 'great danger' solipsism is
"entering an entirely individualistic and subjectivist view of reality in which no meaningful
discourse is possible".

The solipsist position results in a complete relativism and skepticism. Given that there
is no external point of reference, knowledge must be limited to what we as individuals
experience. It is an entirely individual and personal affair: there is nothing beyond uneself
and one’s idea. The solipsist position is thus one which is logically permissible but inward-
looking and self-sustaining, and it offers no scope for the development of a philosophy or
social theory which can be shared in any realistic sense.

Solipsism is thus located within the context of the interpretive and radical humanist
paradigm as a logically tenable position, but one which of little importance within the context
of contemporary sociology (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p 240).

Phenomenology
 At first, the term phenomenology was introduced by JH Lambert, 1764, to refer to the
Theory of Truth (Bagus, 2002: 234). After that, the term is extended understanding. While
according to Kockelmans (1967, in Moustakas 1994: 26), phenomenology used in philosophy
at 1765, which is sometimes found in the works of Immanuel Kant, then well-defined and
construed as meaning technically by Hegel. According to Hegel, phenomenology associated
with the knowledge that appear in consciousness, the science that describes what is
understood someone in consciousness and experience.

The emergence of phenomenology by Husserl was motivated by the fact the crisis of
science. In this crisis, science can not give any advice to humans. Knowledge gap of the
practice of everyday life. It is, according to Husserl, the concept of true theories have been
largely forgotten by many disciplines advanced in today's scientific culture. Thus, according
to Husserl, science crisis was caused by misunderstanding of the scientific disciplines of the
theoretical concepts true that. Through phenomenology, Husserl tried to find the relationship
between theory and world lived life, which is the ultimate objective to produce pure theory
that can be applied in practice (Hardiman, 1993: 5).

Phenomenology as phenomenology sciences method develops as a method to

approach the phenomenon in its purity. Phenomenon here understood as anything that in
some way appear in our consciousness. Either in the form of something as a result of fiction
or be something tangible, in the form of ideas and reality. What is important is the
development of a method that does not falsify the phenomenon, but can describe it like
appearance without prejudice at all. Phenomenologist about to take off all the theories,
presuppositions and prejudices, in order to understand the phenomenon as it is: "Zu den
Sachen Selbst" (back to the object itself). The main task according to Husserl's
phenomenology is to establish a human relationship with reality. For Husserl, not a different
reality at himself off from human observation. The reality that manifests itself, or by
expression Heideger Martin, who is also a phenomenologist: "The nature of reality that
requires human existence". Therefore, Husserl proposed two steps that must be taken to
achieve the essence of the phenomenon, namely the method of epoche and eidetich vision.
Epoche word comes from the Greek, meaning "to postpone the decision" or "emptied himself
of a certain belief". Epoche could also mean brackets (bracketing) of any information
obtained from a phenomenon visible, without giving the correct verdict hurts first.
Phenomena that appear in consciousness is completely natural without interference from the
pre-supposition observers. To that end, Husserl emphasizes one important thing: Delay
decision. Decisions had to be postponed (epoche) or locked out in relation to the status of or
reference ontological or existential object of consciousness. Furthermore, according to
Husserl, epoche has four kinds, namely:

1. Method of historical bracketing: methods that override various kinds of theories and
views that we have ever received in our daily lives, both from indigenous, religion
and science.
2. Method of existensional bracketing: leave or abstain on all attitude decisions or
inaction and delay.
3. Method of transcendental reduction: process the data that we become aware of the
symptoms of pure transcendental consciousness.
4. Method of eidetic reduction: search for the essence of the facts, a sort of make the
facts about the reality of the essence or the essence of that reality.

The fourth purpose of this reduction is to find how the objects in the original
constitution of the phenomenon of consciousness.

Phenomenology also seeks to reveal the meaning of one's experience. Research

phenomenology describes the life experiences of some people about a concept or
phenomenon. Phenomenology researchers exploring the structure of awareness and
understanding of human experience (Sukoharsono, 2006). To understand more about this
method, here are some important steps to be implemented in the context of research
phenomenology. First, researchers must understand the perspective of the philosophy of what
this phenomenology is solid. Second, the object and participants of the study were chosen
should be carefully decided upon, particularly participants involved should have experience
against these phenomena. Third, the data obtained from the typical "long interviews"
followed by the self-reflection of researchers. Fourth, researchers must report the
understanding of the phenomena are studied from the experience participants involved and
analyze it intersubjective ways (Sukoharsono, 2006).

Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology definition is "a set of common sense knowledge and aligning

procedures and considerations were used by members of the general public to interpret, find a
way, and act in the face of conditions when they find themselves". (Heritage, 1984: 4;
Linstead, 2006). Other definition of ethnomethodology by Wikipedia is:
 “Ethnomethodology is a method for understanding the social orders people use to
make sense of the world through analyzing their accounts and descriptions of
their day-today activities”.

Based on the understanding above, ethnomethodology is a sociological studies that

tried to gain an understanding of how a community or members of a particular culture using
or implementing elements of culture in their daily life. With this sense, ethnomethodology
put pressure main question is not as to why a group of people apply or run social behavior in
a certain way as the center of attention ethnography, but rather to how groups of people are
we carefully conduct or practice of cultural elements that are shared they have. In other
words, scientists who choose research approach ethnography is more interested in knowing,
for example, whether all the elements of the culture of a community group is applied in the
same manner automatically, or conversely the elements were actually implemented through
the negotiation process that is contextual according to the situation at hand (Djamhuri, 2011).

Deeper understanding of the nature ethnomethodology we will get to examine the

efforts of its founder, Garfinkel (1988.1991), define it. Like Durkheim, Garfinkel considers
"social facts" as a fundamental sociological phenomenon. However, according to Garfinkel
social facts are very different from social facts according to Durkheim. According to
Durkheim, a social being outside and force individuals. Specialists who accept such thinking
tends to see the actor forced or determined by the structure of social institutions and very
little ability or do not have the freedom to make judgments.

Ethnomethodology Garfinkel explores a very different approach with the approach of

sociological theories others. He criticized the way (sociology), which is a standard addressing
social order. Although clearly in the tradition of humanistic but insists that the subject matter
of sociology is much different from the natural sciences, and questioned each occurrence is
considered a sociologist who objectively study the social world must also doubt the reality of
this world. Ethnomethodology discuss the objectivity of social facts as product activity
accomplishment member methodological members or just abstract theories of behavior.
Garfinkel described the object of attention ethnomethodology as follows:

“The objective reality of social facts for ethnomethodology is a fundamental

phenomenon of sociology as it is every local products are created and organized by nature,
continuous, practical achievement, always, only a definite and thorough, relentless and
without opportunities dodge, hide, exceeded, or delay (Garfinkel, 1991: 11)”.
 Ethnomethodology clearly not in the sense intended of macro sociology Durkheim,
but the followers did not see it as micro sociology. Thus although experts ethnomethodology
refused to treat the actor fool who gives consideration, but they are not sure that it has the
self-awareness and calculation "(Heritage, 1984: 118). By following Schutz, they
acknowledge that the actions of actors often do in a routine and relatively without thought.
Hilbert (1992) states, ethnomethodology experts do not focus on individual actors, but more
members ". However, members are not seen as individuals, but rather "merely as membership
activity dodgy practices to create what they think is a large-scale organizational structure and
the structure of personal or small-scale interactional" (Hilbert, 1992: 193). In short, experts
ethnomethodology no interest in the microstructure and their structure focusing on dodgy
practices that produce both types of understanding of the structure. So, the experts note
Garfinkel other ethnomethodology is a new way of understanding the structure of both micro
and macro that has long been the target of sociology (Maynard and Dayman, 1991).

One of the key establishment Garfinkel regarding ethnomethodology is they "can be

described in a reflective". Explanation is the way actors do something like describing,
criticizing, and idealize certain situations (Bittner, 1973; Orbuch, 1997). Explanation is the
process through which the actors in giving explanations to understand the world.
Ethnomethodology experts stressed attention to analyzing the explanations actors and ways
of explanation given and accepted (or rejected) by others. This is one reason why experts
ethnomethodology focus in analyzing the conversation. In analyzing the explanations, expert
ethnomethodology embrace indifference ethnomethodology establishment. That is, they do
not assess the nature of the explanation, but the explanation was analyzed from the point of
view of how it is used in the explanation of practical action. They pay attention to the
explanation of the methods used to apply the speaker and listener understand and accept or
reject the explanation.

The objective reality of social facts for ethnomethodology is a fundamental

phenomenon of sociology, as it is every local products are created and organized by nature,
continuous, practical achievement, always, simply, surely and thorough, relentless and
without opportunities dodge, hide, beyond the , or delay.

One of the key establishment Garfinkel regarding ethnomethodology is that they "can
be described in a reflective". Explanation is the way actors do something like describing,
criticizing, and idealize certain situations. Explanation is the process through which the actors
in giving explanations to understand the world.

Conclusion

Research as a knowledge system, plays an important role in building science itself.

That is, the study puts the most important position in science to develop a science and protect
it from extinction. Research have the ability to upgrade the knowledge that science is
becoming more up to date, sophisticated, and aplicated for the community.
Social science research is for, about, and conducted by people. Despite the attention to
the principles, rules, or procedures, social research is a human activity. Whether you become
a professional social researcher, someone who applies a research technique as part of a job, or
just someone who uses the results of research, you will benefit from learning about the
research process. You will be enriched if you can begin to create a personal link between
yourself and the research process.
In the tradition of qualitative research, the research process and the science is not as
simple as what happens to the quantitative research, because before the results of qualitative
research can contribute to science, the stages of qualitative research go beyond the various
phases of critical thinking scientifically, where the researchers begin to think inductively, i.e.
capturing a variety of facts or social phenomena through field observations, and then do the
analysis and then trying to do.
Scientific process or science it is not only a way of thinking rationally, or even just a
product of empirical thinking. Because mere deductive logic is certainly not satisfactory
science, otherwise inductive logic would be risky without a developed first through deductive
logic. Scientific truth is not only a product of a rational conclusion coherent with knowledge
of the existing systems, but also in accordance with the facts.
Interpretative social scientists want to learn how the world works so they can acquire
an in-depth understanding of other people, appreciate the wide diversity of lived human
experience, and better acknowledge shared humanity. Interpretive social science try to
capture the inner lives and subjective experiences of ordinary people. This humanistic
approach focuses on how people manage their practical affairs in everyday life and treats
social knowledge as a pragmatic accomplishment,

According to the interpretive paradigm practical orientation, the relevance of social

science knowledge comes from its ability to reflect in an authentic and comprehensive way
how ordinary people do things in commonplace situations. Interpretive paradigm also
emphasizes incorporating the social context of knowledge creation and creates a reflexive
form of knowledge.

The interpretive approach is the foundation of social research techniques that are
sensitive to context, that get inside the ways others see the world, and that are more
concerned with achieving an empathic understanding than with testing laws such as theories
of human behavior.

References

Bagus, L. (2002). Kamus Filsafat. Jakarta, Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Burrel, G. and G. Morgan (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis:
Organization and Industrial Sociology. London, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Chua, W. F. (1988). "Interpretive Sociology and Management Accounting Research - A

Critical Review." Auditing & Accountability Journal: 59-79.

Djamhuri, A. (2011). "Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial Dan Berbagai Peradigma Dalam Kajian
Akuntansi."

Hardiman, F. B. (1993). Menuju Masyarakat Komunikatif: Ilmu, Masyarakat, Politik

Posmodernisme Menurut Jurgen Habermas. Yogyakarta, Kanisius.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Method. New Delhi, Sage Publications.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Method: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
England, Pearson Education Limited.
Sukoharsono, E. G. (2006). "Alternatif Riset Kualitatif Sains Akuntansi: Biografi,
Phenomenologi, Grounded Theory, Critical Ethnografi, dan Case Study." Analisa
Makro dan Mikro: Jembatan Kebijakan Ekonomi Indonesia. BPFE Universitas
Brawijaya: 230-245.