Hi!
I came across this phrase "We cannot read meaning in interview texts, allowing them to propose their own meanings, without also reading meaning into them, as we make sense of their meanings".

I am not sure I understood it correctly. Does it mean that, in simple words, we should analyse the interviews and not just read them?

It may seem silly to you, but English is not my first language.....:-(:$

Goodness, English is my first language and I have a PhD...and I can't understand that sentence! It strikes me as very poor English in terms of clarity. Then lots of academic work is like that!

I'm with Chris on this :$

======= Date Modified 15 Jun 2011 18:18:01 =======
The 3rd part is the key point. It's saying that even if we are trying to be objective when reading interview texts, we ultimately impose our own meaning onto them.

So, when we read an interview, we are influenced by our own belefs and we understand them under this scope??????

(sprout)

^ that's what my brain feels like now.

Think Larry David has it - I guess its saying that when you read an interview and try and understand what someone means, you also apply your own understanding of what they are talking about...so when analysing interviews, you need to recognise that the process is naturally an interplay between your understanding and the understanding of the interviewee - hope this makes sense! And yes I think it's pretty badly worded too so don't worry about it :-)

Yep. It's the subjective vs. objective argument. (I guess you are working in a social science discipline maybe?) It's saying that as much as we try to interpret interview texts objectively, we cannot help but impose our own subjective interpretations onto the person, the information, or the situation.

Thank you for helping me!!!!!

Yes, I am in social sciences and writing up.......................

lol me too :$