VERSTEHEN:

AN ESSAY ON
VERSTEHEN AS AN
APPROACH IN
QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
MUHAMMAD SHAWAL ABDUL
RASHID
COMM 6051 Qualitative Research
Methods
Assoc. Prof. Che Mahzan Ahmad
International Islamic University
Malaysia
2015
ABSTRACT
This essay discusses verstehen as an
approach or methodology to scientific
research, specifically to qualitative
research. Verstehen, a German word
which
literally
translated
to
"understanding" or "insight". In
research, it can be defined as an
approach of scientific research by
taking the meanings people attached to
their actions into account. Since
introduced by Johann Gustavv
Droysen, many, including Wilhelm
Dilthey and Max Weber, have
discussed this approach in their
literatures. Weber, a pioneer of
verstehen in Sociology, is noted for
using this method into his works, and
established two types of verstehen:
direct observational and indirect
explanatory. This essay also takes a
look at some of the criticisms given to
the approach, including renowned
American sociologist, Theodore Abel.
To him, verstehen isnt scientific
because a researcher will never fully
understand anothers culture, and
results followed from this method
cannot be verified. But, the writer
argued that verstehen is not to be

understood as an aimless speculation

but a deeper probe concerning the
various aspects of a problem.
Keywords: Verstehen, Understanding,
Qualitative Research Methodology,
Social Sciences
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In its simplest term, research is an
important part in searching and
gathering information to a problem
youre seeking to answer. Questions
are asked and answers are needed in
order to explain a certain phenomenon.
The ability to locate and evaluate
information is the essence of any
researcher out there and this is a
valuable skill to have.
In research, there are two types
of methodologies known to any
academics:
quantitative
and
qualitative.
Quantitative research method is
a more logical and data-led approach,
which provides a measure of what
people think from a statistical and
numerical point of view. Meanwhile,
qualitative research is about exploring
issues, understanding phenomena, and
answering questions by analyzing and
making sense of unstructured data
(Neuman, 2014).
The center of this essay will be
on qualitative research and its concept
of one of the approaches introduced:
verstehen.
Literally
translated
as
understanding or insight in
German, Verstehen concerned with
identifying the meaning as well as
cause of social phenomena. It is
defined as an approach of scientific
research by taking the meanings people
attached to their actions into account
(Schaefer, 2013).
This approach will become the
subject of this essay. The writer seeks
to discuss the use of verstehen as an


approach in qualitative research
methodology and the history behind its
conception, as well as criticisms.
2.0 WHAT IS VERSTEHEN?
In research, verstehen can be defined
as a systematic interpretive process in
which an outside observer (a third
person) attempts to relate it and make
it understandable by others (Elwell,
2005).
The theory of verstehen stands
for the general methodological
approach that the subject matter of the
social sciences is typically different
from natural sciences, and as such the
techniques of the physical sciences
cannot be applied to the study of social
sciences. The subject matter of the
former is frequently identified as
purposive behavior directed towards
ends, conscious and unconscious. But,
motives, dispositions and goals cannot
be publicly observable in the sense
certain physical and bodily movements
can be (Elwell, 2005).
Rose to prominent as a German
concept, verstehen embodies a
complete understanding of something.
It is a way of approaching
hermeneutics (interpretation) that takes
its view from the personal and
complete understanding of the subject
(Little, 2007).
Of course one will never
comprehensively
understand
the
phenomena he or she seeks, but by
placing oneself as the third person,
objective view of things can be made
(Bransen, 2001). Through the actor's
point of view, this approach requires
the actor as a subject and it implies that
an individual is seen to create the
world by organizing their own
understanding of it and giving it
meaning instead of seeing human as
the product of external forces.
This is how verstehen can be
very useful in interpreting a set of data.

VERSTEHEN 2
3.0
THE
HISTORY
OF
VERSTEHEN
It is agreed by historians that the
philosophers from the Germanspeaking world identified, defined, and
pioneered a type of knowledge largely
overlooked by the others (Hausheer,
1996).
After a couple of readings from
a few texts, the writer has compiled a
brief history of the verstehen since it
was first introduced in the 1863's
Erhebung der Geschichte zum Rang
einer Wissenschaft, a book on
methodological study that introduces
new approach to research and writing.
In the book, written by Johann
Gustav Droysen, he stated the
distinction between the method of
natural sciences and human sciences,
which is: erklren (explanation) versus
verstehen (understanding) (Udehn,
2001).
Verstehen later on used by
Wilhelm Dilthey in 1984. He described
the approach as a first-person
participatory perspective that agents
have on their individual experience as
well as their culture, history, and
society (Dilthey, 1991).
The fact that the meaning of
mental
appearances
are
so
fundamentally important to the
subjects identity, this view has
motivated Dilthey to defend the view
that natural and mental phenomena are
different from one another (Dilthey,
1991).
Moreover, according to him,
verstehen is contrasted with the
external objectivating third-person
perspective of explanation (erklren) in
which human agency, subjectivity, and
its products are analyzed as effects of
impersonal natural forces in the natural
sciences and social structures in
sociology (Dilthey, 1991).
Thus, the only way to acquire
scientifically respectable knowledge of
a
phenomenon
is
to
gain
2


comprehensive insight into what is of
crucial importance to the essence of
the phenomenon; in the case of the
mental phenomena, this means
grasping their meaning (Dilthey,
1991).
In 1920, Max Weber has made
further study on verstehen. He
introduced interpretive understanding
where it is a systematic interpretive
process in which an outside observer
of a culture relates to its subject on
their own terms and point of view
rather than interpreting them in the
researcher's own culture (Macionis &
Gerber, 2010).
"We can accomplish something
which is never attainable in the natural
sciences, namely the subjective
understanding of the action of the
component individuals," Weber said in
his book, Economy and Society
(Gingrich, 1999).
In another word, verstehen
deals with being empathic, or
participatory understanding of social
phenomena (Giddens & Turner, 1987).
Despite gaining momentum in
the European countries early on,
verstehen only introduced to the
United States by Talcott Parsons, an
American follower of Weber. His
book, 1937s The Structure of Social
Action,
introduced
structural
functionalism framework in which it
stated that sees society as a complex
system whose parts work together to
promote solidarity and stability
(Macionis & Gerber, 2010).
Parsons, whos also the editor
of Weber's The Theory of Social and
Economic
Organization,
further
explains: "...this is a technical term
with a distinctly narrower meaning
than either the German or the English
in everyday usage. Its primary
reference in this work is to the
observation
and
theoretical
interpretation of the subjective states
of mind of actors. But it also extends

VERSTEHEN 3
to the grasp of the meaning of logical
and other systems of symbols, a
meaning which is usually thought of as
in some sense intended by a mind or
intelligent being of some sort" (1964).
In a much recent study on
verstehen, Linklater and Suganami
defined the approach as explanation of
what goes on in the social field, by
penetrating the minds, and uncovering
the assumptions and motives, of its
relevant actors, and imparting the
knowledge or understanding thereby
gained to those who are seeking to
make sense of the situation (Linklater
& Suganami, 2006).
4.0 APPLYING VERSTEHEN IN
RESEARCH
Given the fact that social sciences
(sociology, in particular here) being
concerned
with
problem
of
understanding, Max Weber introduced
verstehen method into the field. He
divides verstehen method in two types
(Weinert, 1996):
1. Direct observational verstehen
2. Indirect explanatory verstehen
In case of the first method (direct
observational verstehen), a researcher
can look into the action of a body of
people and predict the meaning behind
their action and what they are going to
do next (Weinert, 1996):.
An example can be seen when you
see someone typing using a computer
keyboard. You know what that person
is doing but you do not necessarily
know why. According to Weber, a
researcher try to explain with it is
happening. Motives must be identified,
thus, allowing the researcher to
interpret it.
To its contrast, indirect explanatory
verstehen method should be used to
understand the historic situations. It
goes beyond observational method in
which it offers scope for the use of
statistical method, historical method,
3


comparative method, and explanatory
method into the field (Weinert, 1996):.
An example can be seen when you
are trying to understand how Adolf
Hitler became who he was before his
suicide in 1945. When you cant
observe the subject, a researcher would
use any records existed to explain
Hitlers hatred of the Jews and how his
political supports came about.
5.0 CRITICISMS OF VERSTEHEN
Verstehen, like any other scientific
approaches and theories, is also
subjected to criticisms, especially from
the positivists.
Theodore Abel, an American
sociologist, listed two reasons why
verstehen failed in providing results
(1965):
First, understanding or the
operation verstehen provides with
many possible solutions to one single
subject, without pinpointing the only
correct explanation. Moreover, the
ability to define behavior will vary
with the amount and quality of the
personal
experience
and
the
introspective capacity of the interpreter
and his ability to generalize. Most of
the explanations may remain mere
guesses.
Verstehen,
therefore,
according to Abel, is of no scientific
value for certain knowledge (Abel,
1965).
Secondly, verstehen is not a
method of verification. From the
affirmation of a possible connection
between a stimulus and a response, one
cannot conclude that it is the only one.
From the viewpoint of verstehen, any
connection that is possibly conceivable
is equally correct. But in the scientific
inquiry, the probability calls for
objective methods of verification, such
as experiments, comparative studies,
statistical operations (Abel, 1965).
These limitations virtually
preclude the use of the operation of
verstehen as a scientific tool of

VERSTEHEN 4
analysis. It can, however, perform one
positive
function
in
scientific
investigation. It can serve as an aid in
preliminary explorations of a subject
and in setting up hypotheses though it
cannot be used to test them.
Another well-known critics of
verstehen are Mikhail Bakhtin and
Dean MacCannell. In their book, From
the Sociology of Symbols to the
Sociology of Signs: Toward a
Dialectical Sociology, they counter
that it is impossible for a person born
of one culture to completely
understand another culture (Rossi,
1983). In another word: verstehen does
not
allow
for
a
"complete"
understanding of its subject.
In the writer's opinion, from the
literatures provided in the previous
chapters, the above criticisms missed
the point, as the theory requires
genuine understanding, which is over
and above the superficial level of
testing and observing. Verstehen is not
to be understood as an aimless
speculation but a deeper probe
concerning the various aspects of a
problem.
In
scientific
inquiry,
hypotheses are set up when the
problems are analyzed and synthesized
by thought, but for genuine
understanding; it is needed both
before and after the study (Neuman,
2014).
It is understanding alone that
tries to evaluate the findings of the
scientific inquiry, whether the data
validates the conclusions or not. The
statistical generalizations do not speak
by themselves but need to be
interpreted, which is helped by
understanding. It not only helps us to
create hypotheses but also enables
researchers to critically examine the
statistical and empirical laws that do
not fit-in with the data (Neuman,
2014).
4


To accept the statistical inquiry only
will be an acceptance at superficial
level
without
any
genuine
understanding of the problem.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Verstehen creates an enigmatic
addiction to the world of scientific
research.
Defined as a systematic
interpretive process in which an
outside observer attempts to relate it
and make it understandable by others,
verstehen literally translated to
understanding or insight.
This essay also discusses on the
history of the approach itself, from its
conception by Johann Gustav Droysen
in 1863, to Wilhelm Dilthey, Max
Weber, and also on its much recent
discussions, including Talcott Parsons,
Andrew Linklater, and Hidemi
Sunagami.
Most prominent work discussed
in this essay is Max Webers. His
approach to verstehen in sociology has
opened a way for qualitative research
7.0 REFERENCES
Abel, T. (1965). Systematic sociology
in Germany: A critical analysis of
some attempts to establish sociology as
an independent science. London, UK:
Octagon Books.
Bransen, J. (2001). Verstehen and
erklren, philosophy of. In Smelser,
N.J.
&
Baltes,
P.B.
(Eds.),
International encyclopedia of the
social and behavioral sciences.
Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Dilthey, W. (1991). Introduction to the
human sciences. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Elwell, F. (2005). Verstehen: The
sociology of Max Weber. Retrieved
from
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felw
ell/www/Theorists/Weber/Whome2

VERSTEHEN 5
methodology to the world. He listed
two types of verstehen, which are
direct observational verstehen and
indirect explanatory verstehen.
Its controversial nature also
criticized by many researchers, notably
positivists. One prominent critic listed
in this essay is Theodore Abel, who
stated how a researchers background
might hinder the subject from complete
understanding. He also questioned how
verstehen could explain a phenomenon
without a concrete result.
However, the writer points out
that genuine understanding is above
the superficial faade of numbers and
figures and verstehen is not to be
understood as an aimless speculation
but a deeper probe concerning the
various aspects of a problem.
To conclude, despite the nature
of this approach is the opposite of the
positivist approaches; it still gives
concrete answer to a certain
phenomenon. An action is believed to
be resulted of ones own self, not
subjected to the external factors.
Giddens, A. & Turner, J. (1987).
Social theory today. California, USA:
Stanford University Press.
Gingrich, P. (1999, September 30).
Max Weber. Sociology 250. Retrieved
from
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s30f99.htm
Hausheer, R. (1996). Three major
originators of the concept of verstehen:
Vico, Herder, and Schleiermacher. In
O'Hear, A. (Ed.), Verstehen and
humane understanding. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Linklater, A. & Suganami, H. (2006).
The English school of international
relations:
a
contemporary
reassessment.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Macionis, J. & Gerber, L. (2011).
Sociology. Toronto, Canada: Pearson.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social
research methods: Qualitative and
5


quantitative approaches (7th edition).
Essex, England: Pearson.
Rossi, I. (1983). From the sociology of
symbols to the sociology of signs:
Toward a dialectical sociology.
Edinburgh,
Scotland:
Edinburgh
University Press.
Schaefer, R. (2013). Sociology (10th
edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
Udehn, L. (2001). Methodological
individualism: Background, history
and meaning. England: Routledge.

VERSTEHEN 6
Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social
and
economic
organization.
Connecticut,
USA:
Martino
Publishing.
Weinert, F. (1996). Weber's ideal types
as models in the social sciences. In
O'Hear, A. (Ed.), Verstehen and
humane understanding. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.