The purpose of this paper is to offer a debate addressing the following issue: how can words fully express the meaning inherent in our observations, personal interviews and pictures when so much of it is subtle, hidden and contextually bound?
A debate is proposed regarding how we present our rich, meaningful data in the journals that Belk, Arnould, Wallendorf, and Holbrook (amongst others) have worked so hard to open to us. In so doing, we may be able to demonstrate more fully the power and insight that is offered by this research paradigm.
In 2001 Baraldi and Bocconcelli asked how we could possibly understand the beauty and magnificence of a Caravaggio masterpiece by reading a description of its colours, the intensity of each shade, the size of the details and the dimensions of the frame? Similarly, this paper contends that the interpretivist community should contemplate the rules (real or perceived) under which we publish our work.
The paper offers arguments against seemingly restrictive elements placed on authors' work in journal publications. Insights are offered on the use of the interpretive route.
CitationDownload as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2006, Emerald Group Publishing Limited