Published
December 16, 2012
Keywords
- epistemology,
- double hermeneutics,
- methodological debate,
- statistical analysis,
- statistical relationship,
- interpretation,
- hermeneutics,
- psychoanalytic research,
- knowledge claim,
- dream narrative,
- linguistic structure,
- discursive performance
...More
Less
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 2005-2018 Journal of Research Practice (ISSN 1712 851X) and the authors
The copyright of the material published in the Journal of Research Practice (JRP) is held primarily by the respective author(s). By agreeing to publish their work in JRP, they permit the journal (JRP) to electronically reproduce and disseminate their work over the Internet, including measures to ensure continued availability of the work, should the journal ever be discontinued for any reason. However, the authors retain all rights over their articles, including self-archival, reproduction, commercial use, etc. After the authors, the copyright passes over to JRP, unless transferred by the authors to any other designated person or entity.
Readers are welcome to use these material with due acknowledgment to the source, as indicated in the suggested citation for each article. The readers can also print and make copies of JRP articles for the purpose of education, learning, and review. However, the articles cannot be used for any commercial purpose without the consent of the respective author(s).
Archival agencies, libraries, publishers, and other agencies associated with academic/scholarly publishing are welcome to contact the Editors to discuss any specific proposals they may have. If the proposal involves a commercial interest, they would be expected to share a part of their benefit with JRP.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to show that statistical analysis and hermeneutics are not mutually exclusive. Although statistical analysis may capture some patterns and regularities, statistical methods may themselves generate different types of interpretation and, in turn, give rise to even more interpretations. The discussion is lodged within the context of a quantitative analysis of dream content. I attempted to examine the dialogical texts of reported dreams monologically, but soon found myself returning to dialogic contexts to make sense of statistical patterns. One could cogently argue that the reported statistical relationships in this study, rather than pointing to any interaction among the "signifieds," speak only to the relationships among the "signifiers" that were being played out through various actors on the analytic or scientific stage, since all of the constructs used in theorizing about, interpreting, and telling dreams come from the same discursive system.