Opettajan toiminnan perusteiden tulkinta ja tulkinnan totuudellisuuden arviointi

Abstract

The study examines the construction of interpretations concerning the reasons for teachers' actions and the verification of these interpretations. Truth of interpretation was defined as the correspondence of interpretation and reality. This definition covers part of validity in qualitative research. The process of interpretation was seen as a hypothetic - deductive procedure. The aim of the study was to analyse how far it is acceptable to see the interpretation of reasons for action as a hypothetic - deductive procedure. This was done by comparing two models of interpretation: the hypothetic – deductive and the quasi - dialogical model. The construction of a hypothetic - deductive model of interpretation was deepened through an investigation of the presuppositions of interpretation. In this investigation analogies were sought with everyday identification of action and everyday interpretation of the reasons for action. The third problem of the study was how far verification of interpretation is a circular process where interpretation hypotheses force the interpreter to identify the data used in verification according to the hypotheses. The method of the study was theoretical analysis. There was a strong emphasis on previous theoretical analyses, the evaluation of which allowed new solutions to be sought. The problems of the study were epistemological and the approach made use of ontological analyses of human action and especially teachers' action. The study relied on the primacy of ontological analyses over epistemological ones. The results of the study show that the interpretation of the reasons for teachers' actions is not a hypothetic - deductive but a hypothetic – narrative procedure. In verifing interpretation hypotheses one has to rely on many kinds of presuppositions. These assumptions concern the agent, his/her history and the situation of the action as well as the theoretical views of action the interpreter holds. The most important and most peculiar of these presuppositions is the presupposition of the rationality of action. The criteria for interpretations are not identified with the help of the interpretation hypotheses. This is so because human action can be identified without knowing the reasons for this action.