“Maybe this is Speculative Now” Negotiating and Valuing Interpretations in Qualitative Research

One predominant genre of literature on methods is “legislative” (Mol 2002: 152). Textbooks and articles belonging to this genre tell their readers how they should understand and use certain methods in order to generate “good,” i.e., methodological sound results. The sources cited in this section can be described as legislative but also show features of others genres, for instance, historical or autobiographical accounts of qualitative research. In this literature, as well as in oral communication among qualitative researchers, interpretation groups are generally regarded as valuable for various reasons. They are simply “fun,” as one group member remarked in a data session. Most researchers who have experienced such sessions will be inclined to agree. However, allusions to the playfulness and fun of joint data analysis are rare in the technical literature. Instead, this literature primarily focuses on the functions of the groups. Firstly, interpretation groups are described as settings which help to unlock the meaning of data (see Reichertz 2013: 13). Accounts of qualitative analysis in general and joint interpretation in particular stress the need to go beyond superficial readings of data by working on the potential meanings of the data at hand. Thus opening up data can be regarded as a basic function of interpretation groups. Secondly, these groups are viewed as a means of quality management (e.g., Schröer et al. 2012). There is a variety of rationales, which explain how these first two functions are fulfilled. A typical justification is that interpretation groups are helpful for developing comparisons. Working with comparisons is a basic technique, which can be found in many styles of analysis (e.g., Grounded Theory). A second aspect of quality management is that interpretation groups bring together a variety of interpretative perspectives, which can be linked argumentatively to challenge one-sided interpretations (e.g., Phoenix et al. 2016). As Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr put it: “It will always be easier for a group to question deadlocked interpretations and to test hypotheses for their ‘robustness’” (2014: 206*).⁵ The effectiveness of interpretation groups can be attributed, according to Riemann, to their way of working: “(…) one discovers more through jointly—orally—describing texts, the representation becomes more multifaceted and denser; and the dialogical argumentation—asserting, contesting, doubting, justifying, and providing evidence—leads to more differentiated and denser analytical abstractions, contrastive comparisons, and theoretical models” (Riemann 2011: 413*). Other authors explicitly link the work done in interpretation groups with quality criteria discussed in relation to qualitative research. For instance, Ines Steinke argues that “interpretations in groups are a discursive way of producing intersubjectivity and comprehensibility by dealing explicitly with data and their interpretation” (Steinke 2004: 187). A third function, which is used to characterize interpretation groups, is that they provide a space for subjectivity and self-reflexivity in the research process. According to Mruck and Mey, such spaces are necessary in order to deal with the inherently social character of research and the subjectivities involved (1998: 287). Their conception of interpretation groups values reflexivity as a resource for better research, which is easier to achieve in a group context. A fourth, frequently mentioned function of interpretation groups is the training of young researchers (e.g., Dausien 2007; Reim and Riemann 1997). Two aspects can be identified here. On the one hand, it could be argued that the primary function of interpretation groups is not socialising its members into a particular research style, but rather the analysis of data (see Riemann 2011: 413f.). But, of course, regular participation in an interpretation group can also be seen as training in a very specific research style. Therefore, there is the possibility that these groups can become an instrument of school building.⁶

Besides these functional justifications, there is also a fifth line of argument: The reference to the tradition of interpretation groups as a work arrangement. Riemann, for example, mentions the context of socialization of Chicago sociologists as a historical reference (2011: 409). According to his account, the working arrangement of the “first” Chicago School was characterized by the fact that materials from individual projects and manuscripts were shared and discussed so that common knowledge and common analytical categories could develop (see Riemann 2011: 410). However, the development of interpretation groups, as we know them in the German-speaking countries, is more closely linked to the so-called “second” Chicago School (Fine 1995). In the research colloquia of, for example, Anselm Strauss, German-speaking researchers such as Fritz Schütze and Gerhard Riemann made experiences with this form of joint interpretation and imported this format into German-speaking sociology (Reichertz 2013; Riemann 2011).

It can be assumed that each interpretation group has its own “educational history” (see Reichertz 2013: 23–26*). This general idea also applies to the groups I visited, which means on the one hand that each long-standing group has a unique perspective, its own ways of doing things, past methodological debates to which they sometimes allude, and a special repertoire of jokes. The educational history develops over time and indicates familiarity and shared understanding among the members. Which is why, in the context of interpretation groups a different tone is adapted in comparison to discussions with a wider and more anonymous audience. Thus, jokes, judgments and informal statements are possible within this protected space, which are not equally likely in other professional contexts, such as talks at academic conferences (e.g., Hoffmann and Pokladek 2010: 208). On the other hand, jointly working on the meaning of data also brings about typical problems and tasks, which open up the space for comparisons between interpretation groups and their practices. Interpretation groups have in common that data analysis—regardless of whether it is verbal or visual data—takes place under the conditions of a specific form of an internal public. Within interpretation groups, a communicative process unfolds during the data sessions in which hunches, ideas and arguments are exchanged and various dimensions of quality are negotiated. At this abstract level, these group sessions are comparable to editorial or panel meetings during the peer review process (e.g., Hirschauer 2015; Lamont 2009). The participants of data sessions comment upon each other’s ideas, they formulate questions regarding methodology and present alternative readings in a more or less immediate and informal style. The feedback and evaluation of statements is more direct than in other contexts of scholarly communication. A number of aspects may affect the participants and their style of contributing. Among them are familiarity with the other members, time invested for preparation, personal interest in the method and data in question. What’s more, in interpretation groups there may be more or less clear dependencies between the actors involved, which also can affect their style of contributing.⁷

After initial greetings data sessions usually start with an introduction to today’s research project or data. The topics of this phase can be quite diverse. For instance, it can entail information on the research question, current problems of the presented project, method of choice or very personal topics among other things. In short, the participants jointly define why they are meeting today, what they want to work on, how they go about the data at hand, and what they expect in the next hours. This introductory phase is as important as later phases of the data session and participants may return to its elements, e.g., the research question, at any point in time. The length of this introductory phase depends on various aspects. For instance, interpretation groups in on going research projects need less time to establish a common frame of reference and thematic focus because they have done so on prior occasions. Interpretation groups, which at every meeting discuss new material and projects contributed by their different members, are different in this regard. Their participants have to invest more work into the introductory phase. For instance, the participants in a self-organized group I visited work with different methods on different types of data. In order to align the diverse perspectives, there are communications in advance (via mail) as well as an exchange on methods at the beginning of each session.

The following example is taken from a data session of an interpretation group, which meets regularly in the context of a funded research project. The session quoted involved the primary investigator, a young researcher, two research assistants and me. As I arrive, all members of the group are already assembled at a round table. Everyone has got two printouts, which are the material for today’s session. More specifically, we will work on an opening sequence of an interview, which was conducted for the research project as well as a full-written interpretation, several pages long, of this very passage. In the beginning, the project leader P3 explains the task for today.

At first, the project leader P3 announces what we are about to look at in today’s session. She provides the real name of the interviewee, her position and also the name of the organization she works for. All three pieces of information taken together make the person easily identifiable among the other interviewees in the sample of the research project. However, she misplaces the interviewee and is corrected immediately by her research assistant P5. After a short correctional exchange, the project leader checks the authorship of the written interpretation and states that we will now follow the procedures of the Documentary Method. More precisely, she hints at the precise mode of interpretation (“now we go into the reflecting”) we should apply in the next hours. Without knowledge of the technical literature her reference to the Documentary Method is nearly impossible to understand. Scholars following this style of research distinguish between two modes of interpretation: formulating and reflecting interpretation (Bohnsack 2013: 225). The first mode of interpretation aims at reconstructing the topical structure of a given document (e.g., a group discussion). It results in a sequential overview of topics and their hierarchy (e.g., Bohnsack 2013: 227). The second mode of interpretation focuses on how things are said in order to reconstruct latent orientations or habitus structures (e.g., Bohnsack 2013: 228). More specifically, while enacting reflecting interpretation researchers try to work out the “organization of discourse” in the material under scrutiny (Bohnsack 2013: 225), which entails working with a specific technical vocabulary (e.g., “proposition” for the introduction of an orientation). After the preliminary remarks of the project leader we start digging into the material and the written interpretation provided and prepared by the research assistant P5.

After the introductory phase a communicative process unfolds over a period of several hours, in which the group members participate in variable degrees of intensity.⁸ The different degrees of participation are not necessarily linked to specific individuals, but may vary from case to case, from session to session.⁹ A major condition for lively discussions is that participants share knowledge usable for interpretation—e.g., a common disciplinary background or experience with data analysis. In contrast to the idea that heterogeneous groups produce dynamic sequences of interpretations (e.g., Schütze 2005), I argue that moderate homogeneous groups are more dynamic in exchanging, negotiating and valuing readings (Hoffmann and Pokladek 2010: 214; see also Knoblauch and Schnettler 2012: 349f.). Similar to participants in group discussions participants in data sessions seem to be more active if they can relate to one another on the ground of experiences or knowledge, which they have in common. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that they must have jointly gained this knowledge. As Britt Hoffmann and Gerlinde Pokladek point out, homogeneity does have many dimensions: The similarities between participants’ research themes (e.g., closely related research questions), the data formats used (e.g., documents), the method of analysis (e.g., sequential analysis in the style of Documentary Method), the progress of the respective research projects (e.g., initial data collection), participants research competences (e.g., mixed levels of experience), disciplinary background (e.g., different disciplines), theoretical knowledge as well as cultural heterogeneity (see Hoffmann and Pokladek 2010: 204). Some of these dimensions are subject to change over time. For instance, familiarity with the practical aspects of interpreting data may be a prerequisite for joint interpretation or at least lively discussions, but since most interpretation groups bring together experienced and less experienced members, this and related aspects can be cultivated over time.

First tentative interpretations are formulated. An initially low frequency of hunches, ideas and questions is at times contrasted by particularly dense phases if the process of joint interpretation develops a corresponding communicative dynamic. An exasperated look at the “data,” reinforced by raised eyebrows, a chin scratch while listening, and other gestures are the silent and yet telling companions of joint analysis. Riemann describes the communicative exchange of interpretative propositions in group sessions as “dialogical argumentation,” the components of which are activities like to claim, to document or to contest (2011: 413). In order to better understand these various activities, I would like to suggest that jointly working out the meaning of data has a triadic structure. Let’s imagine a data session. At first someone gives a short introduction to the research question, the context of the interview and the method of choice. As a next step, we agree to start from the top and identify the first sequence which is part of the initial episode in a biographical interview. The interviewee is a young researcher and speaks right in the beginning about her decision to study computer science. Right away, she introduces her first computer into the narrative. The participants of the data session wonder why someone starts a career narrative with a reference to childhood. Maybe this is a clue in a story of biographical continuity. From a more abstract perspective, the interview sequence in question can be understood as a sign in a semiotic triad (Tavory and Timmermans 2014: 22–30).¹⁰ The other two basic elements are the object which the sign signifies as well as the interpretant which can be understood as the effect of the sign-object relation. In the context of our data session, such an effect could be a question for further investigation: What is the relevance of artefacts such as computers in narratives of educational decision-making? Perhaps there are other instances from prior data sessions, which can serve as sources of inspiration for comparative analysis. Another idea might be that the interviewee is starting a story, which connects her current position and education with events from her childhood. As the process of interpretation proceeds the current interpretant can become the sign in the next step of meaning-making (see Tavory and Timmermans 2014: 24). Interpretative activities—such as repeating one’s own and other’s interpretations as well as reformulating and extending them—connect and transform these semiotic triads. Consequently, the communicative exchange of interpretative propositions in data sessions can be understood as the build-up of semiotic chains, consisting of semiotic triads.

The following example is taken from the same data session of interpretation group M. As already stated, we work on an opening sequence of an interview, which was conducted for the research project as well as a full-written interpretation of this passage, which is oriented toward the working steps of the Documentary Method. The written interpretation entails two things: First a proposal for sequencing the opening passage of the interview transcript, and second interpretations for each sequence. For most of the time, we first read the sequence in question and then evaluate if its boundaries are well-chosen. As a next step we read the interpretation of the sequence, discuss its plausibility and develop our own ideas. On my right-hand side sits P5 who wrote the interpretation. She will heavily annotate her printout in the following two hours and is responsible for the revision of the written interpretation. During the data session this document is several times a starting point for discussing various sequences from the interview transcript as well as questions concerning methodology and research techniques. In the following sequence, the project leader P3 notices that the written interpretation of the interview is missing something:

Early in the session, P3 who is in charge of both the research project and the current session, raises her hand and states that she wants to add something. In the short communicative exchange quoted above she proposes an alteration of the written interpretation, without generally questioning it. Rather, she refines the written interpretation by hinting at the relevance of a pause in the transcript, which she interprets as relatively long. P5 concedes that she has ignored the pause and the intervention is confirmed, whereupon P3 further develops her idea. She quotes from the sequence in question and counts out loud the seconds of the pause. The effect of this verbalisation is that both the pause and its duration are stressed. How P3 formulates her own version of the sequence combines a kind of simple verbal re-enactment with an altered reading as she states that the interviewee verbally performs some kind of search movement. The expansion of the interpretation is done quickly and easily at this point. In this process P5’s initial reading—her interpretant of the interview sequence we all refer to—becomes the sign in the next semiotic triad. By highlighting the pause in the interview sequence, P3 relates to this sign and adds a new link to the semiotic chain. At this point, there are no further additions and objections by the other participants and P3 closes this episode with a final “good”.

Negotiating readings, building up semiotic chains, and working on their quality can take much more time as in the simple example above. In fact, in the same session there are extended discussions on the meaning of various sequences and their elements. Of course, discussions can lead to dead ends in semiotic chains, which can be solved by returning to prior readings (i.e., semiotic triads) or exploring new ones. In the following extract we are starting to explore the initial answer and its possible meanings. The interviewee begins her answer with “I have” then interrupts herself and continues with “I am now”.

In the excerpt quoted above, P1 proposes to explore the implicit meaning of the two verbs used by the interviewee more thoroughly. Two other participants, P4 and P5, signal approval (“uhu”) and P1 goes on by suggesting that “to have” and “to be” signify different modes of relating to the world. More specifically, in her perspective both verbs imply different degrees of active involvement and agency. Since researchers using the Documentary Method typically investigate implicit frames of orientation this analytical move by P1 should be of interest to the other participants. After this initial statement, P4 presents two formulations—which are relatively close to the formulations used by the interviewee—and asks which one is more active. By doing so, he opens up the possibility to explore further the dimension of activity. What’s more, in using exemplary formulations close to the original sequence, P4 ties the discussion more closely to the transcript. In her direct response to P4’s question, P1 picks one of the formulations and links it to a higher level of activity. Immediately P4 poses another question, which varies the expression “I have experience”. Without overtly criticising the answer of P1 the new question by P4 increases the pressure on her suggestion. P1 tries to further elaborate her idea but finally concedes that she has trouble pinpointing the differences between the formulations. At this point the exchange of arguments and ideas comes to a halt. The idea of differentiating between active and passive modes of being in the world is not taken up by any participant. After a longer pause P3 proposes an alternative and a way out of the current dead end. In her account, the sequence in question might relate to a social position rather than to a mode of being. Her alternative reading opens up a new side-track for discussing the sequence in question. The other participants signal interest, but shortly after we will return to the differences between to have and to be.

On the one side, interpretation groups are an arrangement that is centred on slowing down and hindering our everyday habits of sense-making. On the other side, there is a shared expectation among members of these groups that their efforts bring about results. Thus, it is both a central challenge and task for these groups to agree upon the meaning of data. The examples above make clear that joint interpretation involves going back and forth between chunks of data, the things they possibly signify and our understandings of them. In the process of discussing different readings a wide repertoire of dialogical activities is used. In connecting to previous formulated interpretations group members work on—implicitly or explicitly—their value. Negotiating and valuing readings comprises not only the assessment of their interpretative appropriateness. It also contributes to their improvement.

The evaluation or reformulation of an interpretation can also be accompanied by references to methodology and techniques of analysis. If such references are woven into the formulation of alternative or extended interpretations, they can be made highly relevant for the legitimation of “good” readings. Of course, the quality of interpretations can also be questioned by referring to methodological standards. “Good” readings or interpretations are those, which survive the confrontation with criteria and working principles of qualitative research in general or a specific research methodology in particular. Criteria, as well as methodological principles, can be understood as rhetorical resources used during negotiating interpretations. In the same way as in negotiations on the acceptance of manuscripts for publication those criteria are strategically applied (see Hirschauer 2010: 76). This, however, does not contradict the assumption that quality is established during group interpretations. Indeed, mobilizing criteria and methodological principles for evaluating interpretative propositions is an important part of improving interpretations. There are different ways of mobilizing criteria in the practice of interpretation groups, one of those is the call to order.¹¹ A call to order is observable if one member of the interpretation group addresses another or several members, questioning not primarily the meaning of an interpretative proposition, but its Gestalt or the process of its formulation. These interventions more or less explicitly enact the criteria and principles of qualitative research in general or a specific methodology in particular in the interpretation process. There are two basic variants: First, the call to order does not introduce a competing interpretation. Second, the call to order is directly followed by an alternative reading of the sequence in question. What is more, calls to order can be formulated in the light of a specific method. They can, for instance, demand that the group has to (1) follow the sequence or (2) ignore contextual knowledge. Calls to order across various methods can, for instance, insist that (3) interpretations are not to be accepted quickly or that (4) the group should return to the material.

The first mentioned call to order reminds the participants to (1) follow the sequence. It is primarily employed in groups, which follow methods such as Objective Hermeneutics or Documentary Method. Both methods are characterised by their emphasis on sequentiality as a methodological assumption, which finds its way into the practice of interpretation (e.g., Maiwald 2005). References to this principle are ubiquitous in the relevant literature (e.g., Nohl 2010; Wernet 2013). Any hint of leaving the sequence can be used for a call to order. “Leaving the sequence” is negatively sanctioned by a communicative intervention, which may use different expressions (e.g., “we are still not there”).

Closely related to “follow the sequence” is (2) ignore contextual knowledge: The interpretation groups I examined differ in the ways in which they dealt with contextual knowledge, i.e., supplementary knowledge about the cases. For example, one of the key principles of interpretation in Objective Hermeneutics is to temporarily exclude contextual knowledge in order to explore thoroughly the different meanings of the data at hand (Wernet 2013: 239). This methodological principle can be used for interventions. However, it does not generally forbid the use of contextual knowledge but rather limits the ways of using such knowledge. Besides these two exemplary calls to order there are other possible interventions, which are recognized across various interpretative approaches. One can think, for instance, of an intervention against a (3) rash closure of interpretation. This call to order can be described as follows: A member of the interpretation group addresses another or several members of the group with the comment that the interpretation has been accepted too hastily. This call can take on different forms, for example, a mere assertion that things are going too fast, or a question as to whether the group could have overlooked something. Finally, call to orders can also be linked to an alternative reading as in the following example.

The interpretation group T is organized by a doctoral researcher who wants to finish his empirical study in the near future. In terms of methodology, he is inspired by Grounded Theory and Documentary Method. The data session, which we will now visit, was about four hours long and its purpose was to discuss a theoretical model grounded in and developed from group discussions with young adults. The participants of the data session are four doctoral researchers and one postdoc, all working at the same university. We meet at the office of the inviting doctoral researcher and sit down at a table with food and beverages. Everyone is provided with copies of transcribed sequences from various group discussions. On one desk, a monitor is showing a visualization of a theoretical model. At the beginning P1, who invited us, introduces us to his doctoral research. We discuss his model and research question for about one hour before we dive into the material. The next hours we go back and forth between an intensive discussion of sequences from his group discussions and his theoretical model.

By doing so, he might criticize the current interpretation both in regard to its content as well as its terms of formulation. After his unambiguous “That is too fast for me,” he suggests an alternative reading. First, he refers to a previous statement made by a teenager called M1 in one of the transcripts, which was discussed earlier, and then he starts formulating a reading of this sequence by introducing two contexts M1 might refer to in his statements. Immediately, P2 addresses the young researcher P1 who is hosting the interpretation group. She translates the interpretative proposition of P4 into a language compatible with the research interest of P1 (“These are perhaps the spaces of recognition which you have.”). In doing so, she uses her knowledge from our initial discussion of P1’s study and research question. The formulation of P2 gives the alternative reading of P4 extra weight because it opens up possible connections to the research interest of P1 as well as the literature on recognition. P4 confirms the suggestion of P2 whereupon P1 agrees and P4 concludes that what they are actually talking about are different social relations.

Time and again members of interpretation groups suggest that the group should return to the material or data. Requesting to go (4) “back to the material” has a different character than the preceding interventions. With statements like “can we simply stick to the material” or “I don’t read it there” participants can refer to the material, which should be the basis for analysis. If prompted, on going thought experiments and discussions are most likely interrupted. Those group members, who are confronted with this intervention—and with them their interpretations—,are under pressure to legitimize their readings. Therefore, this type of intervention can be understood as a plausibility test.¹² The intervention “back to the material” calls to attention that interpretations, which are jointly formulated and revised, have a common reference object—hidden in plain sight due to its visibility: The interview transcript, observational note, image or video transcript—in short, the material which is to be interpreted. The quite common reference to the material reveals the triadic relationship of interpretative propositions. Each new formulated proposition is connected to former propositions as well as to the material in question. In this perspective, transcriptions are not only the empirical basis for interpretation. Also, they can be understood as instruments of controlling the process of interpretation and keeping the participants on track. So, referring back to the “data” is both. On the one hand, it potentially acts as a strong test for interpretations and their approval. On the other hand, calls for going back to the data help to establish start as well as end points in the process of negotiating and valuing interpretations.

To sum up, calls to order contribute to the quality of interpretations in various ways. First of all, they help to stay within the boundaries of the conventions of the respective method of analysis. In addition, group members can use calls to order for sharpening each other’s arguments. Finally, they also immunize readings and interpretations against possible critiques. Interpretations, which survive the challenges mobilised in joint interpretations, may have better chances outside the context of the interpretation group. They can gain additional weight by adding results from past data sessions or already published findings. As in the case of scientific publications (e.g., Latour 1987), references to existing literature, theories or philosophers as well as past interpretations potentially make it harder to criticise the freshly developed readings.

In this episode, P1 tries to explain to P2 what to look for methodically in the subsequent interpretation. She stresses the importance of focusing not on single words but on whole sequences. Then P2 asks if specific categories of words are more relevant than others, which is rejected by the other group members. They state in unison that everything is equally important. In doing so, they are in line with the conventions of their method of choice—the Documentary Method (Bohnsack 2013). As a response, P2 asks another question, which still focusses on the meaning of words. P3 reacts to his question by taking a step back and extending the previous explanations. First, she introduces a basic analytical distinction between two levels of meaning—content and form. Her explanation implicitly refers to two working steps in the Documentary Method: the formulating and reflecting interpretation (Bohnsack 2013: 225). P2 signals that he understands her differentiation. Following this, the group leader P3 states that any words can be of importance for the interpretation, at least in theory. Once again P2 tries to contribute to the methodological discussion by suggesting a word (“relevant”). P3 borrows his choice of words and refines this contribution with a reference to a basic principle of interpretative social research: the necessity of following the relevancies of the actors and not that of the researchers. P2 poses another two questions, in which he probes his understanding of the basic idea. P3 closes this episode with a remark which connects the techniques of a certain approach—Documentary Method—to discipline. In the very same session, the project leader P3 not only explains the general perspective but also technical terms.

P3 opens this episode by defining the next task for the participants. We are to discuss whether there is a “follow-up proposition” in the interpreted sequence or not. In other words, P3 draws out attention to the question “how” the interviewee articulates herself and not “what” she possibly means. In doing so, P3 uses a basic technical term in the Documentary Method (“follow-up proposition”), which characterizes how the interviewee relates to what she has said before. P2 signals his attention, while the other three group members initially remain silent. Without much waiting, P3 explains the meaning of the technical term in her own words. After her explanation P2 responds to the initial question of P3 and describes why the sequence in question qualifies in his perspective as a follow-up proposition. Both episodes presented here are embedded in the analytical work. There are no long methodological discussions here or references to technical literature. Instead, the analytical perspective and key terms are explained while jointly working out the meaning of the transcripts.

Participants of interpretation groups develop and enact a shared style of working with data that requires legitimisation especially when questioned by new members. In the course of explicating and legitimating methodological principles and procedures, a specific vocabulary is used, which may vary profoundly depending on the style of research. Learning a fitting vocabulary goes hand in hand with practicing habits of analytical distinction and interpretation. In addition, group members learn which methodological decisions are permissible and which are not. As a consequence, the members of interpretation groups learn to evaluate interpretations regarding their plausibility and their methodological quality. The knowledge acquired shapes their evaluation of other researchers’ interpretative practices, and this very knowledge can be used to defend knowledge claims against critique in other situations (such as talks).

Closing data sessions might seem of little importance regarding the production of good results. However, closings and their elements—especially the timing and the techniques of wrapping up—are crucial for participants’ evaluations of the sessions as a whole. How data sessions are finished is familiar to anyone regularly attending meetings in work contexts. First, at some point someone remarks that it is about time to come to an end. Maybe a participant mentions that he has to leave in about 30 min because it is his turn to pick up the child from the kindergarten, or the project leader reminds everyone that the department meeting is starting soon. One way or the other, the participants jointly open up the closing of the data session. They stop to discuss interpretative options, alternative readings, or methodological strategies. Instead they turn to other things. In the following excerpt, we revisit interpretation group T. After nearly three hours of joint data analysis P1 asks if we agree to close the session.

In this short excerpt, P1, who invited us to discuss his material and conceptual ideas with him, opens up the possibility to stop our discussion. He does that by formulating a simple question, which is answered positively by two other participants. His impression, that he now has a lot to do, implies that our session was productive. Productivity is ambivalent because it means in this context that P1 now has new ideas to digest and tasks to perform. In other words, our session produced a plethora of new work for him. The humorous interjection by P5 (“get rid of some hours of overtime”) has the serious background that the tasks generated by our joint work have to be performed by P1 more or less on his own. Whether the duration of the session was agreed upon in advance or not, the timing of closing a session is more than a technical question. In the light of the whole research process it is a strategic question. For instance, the current stage of the discussed research project affects the “right” timing. At an early stage in the research process the analysis of interview data opens up the opportunity to explore different research ideas in data sessions. Such extensive search movements are valuable, but also challenging for the researcher providing the data. This is partly because the next steps after the data session might become unclear. Therefore, good timing might make the difference between inspiring input and confusing information overload. Later stages of projects have their own challenges. The session of interpretation group T cited earlier, started with a visualization of a theoretical model. In the course of the session, we went back and forth between the data and this model. As a result of this open-end session, the theoretical model and its visualization had to be rebuilt from scratch. Fortunately, the session continued until there were constructive suggestions on the table.

In most cases, interpretation groups have solutions for wrapping up and documenting their work results. Maybe the group leader tries to summarize the most important results and problems, which came up in the session. Such summaries can come in many forms. Some interpretation groups rely on visualisations for wrapping up their data sessions, for instance, by drawing a conceptual map or a table on a whiteboard, which depicts key results and open questions. Another solution are recordings of whole sessions as well as annotated documents and transcripts. They provide rich raw material for written protocols or interpretations. The episodes from interpretation group M discussed earlier resulted in a revised version of the written interpretation. The complex series of semiotic triads was translated into something, which can later be used by the group to produce manuscripts and talks. Whatever the solutions might be an interpretation group comes up with, it is plausible to assume that they affect both the productivity of the work arrangement as well as the post hoc evaluation of individual data sessions. Finally, the person who presented her work and provided the data thanks everyone for their constructive ideas, and the participants might discuss when they meet the next time and what material they will work on.