In interpretivist ontology, reality is perceived as socially constructed and interpreted by individuals. There is not one singular, objective truth. Rather, through conversation, we discover the ways that people make sense of the world around them. The way we understand the world is based on our experiences, values, culture, and language. Specifically, through the latter two, we have a basic understanding of the things we encounter in our everyday life (Ablett & Dyer, 2009). 

To challenge our peers' everyday interpretation conceptions, we used the very common practice of sitting in a chair. Rather than this pre-interpreted application of a “chair”, we asked them: “How else could you use this object”? With this exercise, we tried to open up beyond their pre-conceived understandings of a chair, and reflect on its use outside of the context of its usual function. But even in this de-contextualized exercise, your previous experiences and values relate to how you utilize the “chair”. This shows that even though we try to take ourselves out of our (cultural) context to analyse a phenomenon, interpretation is always dependent on context and previous experience (Ablett & Dyer, 2009).

This exercise also builds on the presumption that interpretation is never complete. There are always more positions to reflect on (Ablett & Dyer, 2009). This is also true for ourselves. With this hermeneutic approach, we don’t only challenge our peers' view, but also our own, to get a better understanding of our own presuppositions (Gorton, 2010). For this reason, we included our own interpretations in the exercise.

References:

- Ablett, P. G. & Dyer, P. K. (2009) ‘Heritage and hermeneutics: towards a broader interpretation of interpretation’, Current Issues in Tourism, 12:3, 209-233.

- Gorton, W. A. (2010) ‘The philosophy of social science’, The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/soc-sci/ 

Resource designers: Kunle, Liv, Nopparut & Minke

How do we see the same world differently from someone else? This museum piece quite literally showcases interpretation, exploring the idea that meaning is shaped by our individual experiences, social context, and cultural understandings. In other words, this exhibition piece invites viewers to reflect on how we each construct meaning from our unique social and cultural positions. Through the use of three different words that were interpreted by three different individuals through visual representation of associations by selecting pictures that represent these words. Trying to showcase not the search for one objectively true depiction of a word but value the multiple different perspectives that come forth when people make sense of a concept.

Three different words were chosen - light, adventure, and irreplaceable - to then visualize. To visualize them, a selection of different pictures were chosen by each of us in the group. These pictures represent each individual's associations with these words, resulting in a mosaic of individual interpretations that reflected personal experience, social-cultural contexts, and the differences or maybe similarities between individuals.

The viewer will only imperfectly understand our individual interpretations. It will be difficult to know who picked which picture for which word without interaction. It is exactly within that interaction that mental, social and cultural phenomena are understood, that shape humans' diverse subjective reality, meaning making and behaviour. The extent to which one can be understood also depends on that person’s own understanding of their own beliefs, values, reasons and behaviours. The piece also aims to showcase how the viewer's interpretations might differ or compare to the pictures that are selected. 

What pictures would you choose to depict these words, how would they differ, or do you resonate with what’s in the piece?

Resource designers: Komang, Wiske and Luuk

Interpretivism is ''The view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as  such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context.'' (Crotty 1998: 42). Interpretivist ontology entails that objective reality exists outside of and independently from us. However, experiences in that objective reality differ among each person, meaning that experiences are perceived subjectively. The experience of reality is constructed, experienced and interpreted through human interactions with each other and in wider socio-cultural contexts. 

Social constructions are collectively-held beliefs connecting an image or a thing to an idea. They are not neutral as it is culturally specific including values, beliefs and assumptions about behaviour. Language is a good example of constructionism. Language is part of how we communicate with others within societies and between societies. Social reality relies on communication as it cannot be described without  understanding how we use language to make sense of how we communicate and express experiences to each other. For example, words are not what they refer to but are how we agree on what the word refers to. It is therefore impossible to translate all words in different languages, as the word has occurred in one society with one language but, due to different socio-cultural aspects, never has been relevant in another society with another language. Therefore, this exhibit is an interactive game trying to translate words from four different languages. The table available in the link below shows the four words, including an attempted English translation. Try to translate this word in your own language. There is an example how the word is pronounced by a native speaker in the audio files accessible via the link below. 

Access and download resource here:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Y0PtqqfURrUxvUOAY7NLgiB22vWb8sN0?usp=drive_link 

Resource designers: Magor Szász-Bencsik, Nadia de Bell, Yusuke Mizusawa, Willemijn Smits

This poem, written by Nadine Waalkens, shows an individual questioning themselves and the world (of tourism). In it, a distinction between the world from two viewpoints is shown: a grown-up and a child that has yet to grow up. This grown-up explains the horrors it sees and experiences and the harsh realities of the world. Whereas, on the other side the child is still on her road to explore the complex reality of the world, where everything is new, and exciting, and the child is still learning all the different things that regard being a human. 

The poem shows the interpretivist view on how reality is constructed through interactions with each other. That the bad things in life are something that you’re not born with, but that you get taught, through language and interactions with people. That the roles of humans are still something to explore and differ largely per person, since everybody comes from a different socio-cultural background, with their own context shaping their individual sense of reality. The last part of the poem references the sense that through language and words, it is possible to know how to construct meaning out of an experience. Questioning themselves (‘Do I know something that others can’t see?’), the protagonist realizes she has a totally different view of the world, wondering if this is correct or if she might even be crazy. However, it all relates to a difference in interpretation of what they see and their interactions with other people. And that that is the only way to make sense of the world.

Access and download the resource: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SeamgDZiL5xGZ_BigMJjo_qUXpj-mFn8?usp=drive_link 

Resource designers: Harvin Chaggar, Jiayi Dong, Nadine Waalkens, Suze Westra

3-6 Players

Duration: 20 minutes

Age: 16+

Aim of the game: Interpretation of data from the social world “requires unpacking the larger web of meanings in which they are embedded” (Gorton, 2010, p. 19). Play smartly by asking questions to collect as many sets of four cards containing human experience data (the quartets) as possible. In so doing, you create an objective reality framework (e.g. a red traffic light) which helps you “understand the meaning of” (Ablett & Dyer, 2009, p. 216) humans’ complex social relations and processes (e.g. crossing a road). Pay close attention to others during the turns to discover who has which cards. The one with the most quartets wins.

Preparation: All cards are divided equally among the players. Take the cards in your hand and ensure that others don’t see which ones you have.

The game: A random player starts. When it’s your turn, ask another player for a card with a subjective human experience that you don’t have. This must be a card from an objective reality in which you have at least one card. Mention the quartet’s name and which card you want. If the player has that card, s/he gives it to you and you continue asking for cards. If the player doesn’t have the requested card, your turn is over.

All human experiences in the quartets are based on the game developers’ experiences. However, the players are human, too, and co-create meaning with us. Each quartet’s fourth card is therefore left blank to give players the “possibility for a dialogue or conversation across differing positions and reflection upon one’s own position” (Ablett & Dyer, 2009, p.221). When you have a set of four cards, shout ‘Quartet!’ and explain your position to demonstrate your critical awareness before placing the four matching cards in front of you. The game ends when all subjective experiences of objective realities are interpreted.

Access and download this resource: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1gdaNc7cA3LIADi4M_F5PYEZ8wL4YIxc-JhI6hqMbO4g/edit?usp=sharing 

References:

• Ablett, P.G. & Dyer, P.K. (2009). Heritage and hermeneutics: towards a broader interpretation of interpretation. Current Issues in Tourism, 12:3, 209-233.

• Gorton, W.A. (2010). The philosophy of social science. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/soc-sci/ 

Resource designers: Elke, Izzy & Gia

This is game presents a picture taken of the clouds on a random day, and let people draw the figures they see in the clouds. For example, someone might see a teddy bear while others see a mushroom or crocodile head.

This example illutrates one of the fundamental parts of the ontology of interpretivism: one human's experience of something within that objective reality can only ever be imperfectly perceived by another human because it is experienced subjectively. Just like the clouds: the cloud's form is interpreted differently by everyone: some might see a teddy bear, while others see a mushroom. These differences in interpretation also means that no one -including researchers - can perfectly, fully and objectively reflect an objective reality. The best we can do is identify differences in how  subjects (and we  are all subjects) make meaning  of the world and how these meanings are rooted in subjects' broader cultural contexts.

Access and download this resource: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19bdXswr2Hx1FWbBhC1CaVPbFI1GFAJBU/view?usp=drive_link 

Resource designers: Daniëlle Schuijt, Tim ten Brinke, Reihane Sadeghazde & Ayla Brouwers

Ramdas Bhandarkar’s poem ‘Cultures are Rivers, Souls are Waters’  is full of metaphors that align nicely with the interpretivist approach. Interpretivism focuses on  the beliefs, norms and values of culture, through the lens of personal interpretation. The poem makes use of rivers as a metaphor for culture and meaning, whereas the water that flows through those rivers reflects individual human souls. The river is shaped by the water, cultures are shaped by souls. 

As Fish (1980) describes, culture can be defined as a guide to behaviour, as the ‘publicly available system of intelligibility’ into which we are born, enabling us to make sense of the world. People's personal lived experiences are shaped by culture in diverse ways. Yet these subjective experiences can only be imperfectly perceived by another person. Just like water and rivers are fluid, culture and meaning are always in motion, creating changes over time, both big and small. Humans are creative and social beings who are constantly organizing, sorting and sifting, shaping their interpretations to make sense of reality and their or others’ place. These are shaped by social constructions, which are collectively held beliefs connected to an image/thing or idea, teaching us how to see and behave towards people and objects. 

In the last part of the poem, these social constructs come forward. Rivers flow through different landscapes. Whether a mountain, a desert or a forest, the water keeps on flowing, by adapting to the landscape by meandering or flowing straight. It symbolizes how cultures and people within them differ.

Access and download this resource:

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/cultures-are-rivers-souls-are-water/ 

References:

Bhandarkar, R. (2013) 'Cultures are Rivers, Souls are Waters', Poem Hunters. https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/cultures-are-rivers-souls-are-water/ 

Fish, S. (1980) "How to Recognize a Poem When You See One." Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.322-337.

Resource designers: Age, Pinelopi & Viva

This cultural puzzle transforms Interpretivism into a logic-based puzzle, guiding participants to engage with abstract cultural symbols and their meanings through reasoned interpretation. This exhibit highlights how individuals and groups construct meanings based on their cultural and historical contexts.

Visitors are presented with a series of ymbols—such as a bridge, an eagle, and a flame—along with abstract clues that reference concepts of transition, dominance, and transformation. Each clue invites participants to interpret the symbol's significance, drawing on logic to connect the clues to the deeper cultural meanings that these symbols have held across different societies. The puzzle challenges participants to think beyond the surface of the objects, using logical reasoning to decode how various cultures might assign significance to them.

For example, a bridge can be  described as “a passage between states, but neither fully in one nor the other,” prompting participants to think logically about how this image might represent journeys or transitions in life. The exhibit emphasizes the cognitive process of understanding symbolic meanings by deducing connections, much like how Interpretivist researchers analyze how people interpret their social worlds through cultural lenses.

By engaging with this logic-based sensory learning style, participants sharpen their critical thinking skills, as they apply structured reasoning to unravel cultural interpretations. This method reflects Interpretivism’s focus on meaning-making, where knowledge is seen as subjective and constructed through a process of understanding diverse perspectives.

This puzzle brings Interpretivism to life, allowing participants to experience how logic plays a role in interpreting cultural symbols and understanding the social world.

Access and download this resource: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PeKwJHDcRS2txyYRVZqULfgeOJrSAVysKLHmMQXAp0o/edit?usp=drive_link 

Resource designers: Manon Pasman & Anna de Moor