OEVERMANN, Ulrich, 2001. Zur Analyse der Struktur von sozialen Deutungsmustern. Sozialer Sinn. 1 Mai 2001. Bd. 2, Nr. 1, S. 3–34. DOI 10.1515/sosi-2001-0102
pages/deutungsmuster
Editorial note: The article reproduced here presents the text of the typescript version of Ulrich Oevermann's previously unpublished "grey paper" dated 25 January 1973, which is widely referred to in the discussion of interpretative patterns. Corrections of spelling mistakes and missing words are indicated in square brackets in the version published here; obvious typos that do not distort the meaning have been corrected without comment. The pagination of the original typescript is also inserted in square brackets at the end of each original page. All footnotes are by the editors. With the exception of a lengthy addition in the middle section, the text is now also available on the homepage of the Working Group on Objective Hermeneutics (http:// www.objektivehermeneutik.de), where some of the editorial corrections made here have already been implemented.
See 'Association for Objective Hermeneutics'. site 
> “Our approach has grown out of the empirical study of family interactions as well as reflection upon the procedures of interpretation employed in our research. For the time being we shall refer to it as objective hermeneutics in order to distinguish it clearly from traditional hermeneutic techniques and orientations. The general significance for sociological analysis of objective hermeneutics issues from the fact that, in the social sciences, interpretive methods constitute the fundamental procedures of measurement and of the generation of research data relevant to theory. From our perspective, the standard, nonhermeneutic methods of quantitative social research can only be justified because they permit a shortcut in generating data (and research "economy" comes about under specific conditions). Whereas the conventional methodological attitude in the social sciences justifies qualitative approaches as exploratory or preparatory activities, to be succeeded by standardized approaches and techniques as the actual scientific procedures (assuring precision, validity, and objectivity), we regard hermeneutic procedures as the basic method for gaining precise and valid knowledge in the social sciences. However, we do not simply reject alternative approaches dogmatically. They are in fact useful wherever the loss in precision and objectivity necessitated by the requirement of research economy can be condoned and tolerated in the light of prior hermeneutically elucidated research experiences.” (Oevermann et al. 1987, German Original: Oevermann et al. 1979)
~
YOUTUBE tEfvxbt3SWA DokuMet
See also The Concept of Distributed Interpretation, Generative AI as a Partner in a New Epistemic Unit, Reconstructive Social Research Prompting (RSRP), Modular Prompt Architecture for Methodology, Distinction Between Methodological Knowledge ("Wissen") and Methodological Skill ("Können"), Critique of "Media Competence" as an Outdated Framework, A Cultural-Technical Alternative to Competence Frameworks, New Required Knowledge: Prompt Engineering as Methodological Skill, The Indispensable Need for Foundational Methodological Expertise, AI as a Methodological Mentor and Training Tool, AI's Role in Systematic and Intersubjectively Verifiable Interpretation, AI as an Agent in a Sociotechnical Network, Complementary, Not Substitutive: The Future of Hybrid Learning