Interpretive social science is well established institutionally at universities and research centres. It benefits from this institutional context in terms of prestige, credibility and grants. In comparison with non-interpretive disciplines however, its scientific status is questionable. What elements of it are really scientific and what elements are threats to this scientific character? This problem has been discussed in the past but unfortunately the discussion has gradually dried up without a successful resolution. In my thesis I am revitalising it. I take a systematic rather than historical approach: instead of picking up the discussion where it has been abandoned, I begin with a working definition of science, and analyse to what extent interpretive inquiry meets the requirements of this definition. The structure of my thesis follows this definition in that what is discussed is the three substantial elements of it - theory, research method, and professional quality control. In relation to theory, I pose questions on a range of topics, such as whether interpretive social science is explanatory, and whether it generates new knowledge. In relation to method, I explore, amongst other things, whether qualitative method permits the production of valid and reliable findings. The discussion of professional quality control considers issues around the reporting of findings and the assessment of these findings by others. I complement my analysis by considering three interpretive case studies, exploring both whether they produce theoretical knowledge and reflecting on their methodological strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, I explore the border between interpretive inquiry and non-fiction arts, such as literary reportage and documentary filmmaking, arguing that this border is more blurred than it may first appear.

Narrative inquiry provides an opportunity to humanize the human sciences, placing people, meaning, and personal identity at the center of research, inviting the development of reflexive, relational, dialogic, and interpretive methodologies, and drawing attention to the need to focus not only on the actual but also on the possible and the good. In this chapter, we focus on the intellectual, existential, empirical, and pragmatic development of the turn toward narrative. We trace the rise of narrative inquiry as it evolved in the aftermath of the crisis of representation in the social sciences. The chapter synthesizes the changing methodological orientations of qualitative researchers associated with narrative inquiry as well as their ethical commitments. In the second half of the chapter, our focus shifts to the divergent standpoints of small-story and big-story researchers; the differences between narrative analysis and narratives under analysis; and narrative practices that seek to help people form better relationships, overcome oppressive canonical identities, amplify or reclaim moral agency, and cope better with contingencies and difficulties experienced over the life course. We anticipate that narrative inquiry will continue to situate itself within an intermediate zone between art and science, healing and research, self and others, subjectivity and objectivity, and theories and stories.