This chapter concludes the discussion of interpretation by focusing on the emotions and mental processes of the interpreter. Each case presents at least one dilemma that cannot be solved through pure legal deduction. What options, then, does the interpreter have? First, they will seek the illusory comfort of legal objectivity, and convince themselves that the answer is out there, buried somewhere in the record. But it is not. Second, the interpreter will try to exercise responsible agency and provide an answer that best resonates with their ethical or political commitments. But the interpreter does not really know which interpretive outcome is preferable. Third, the interpreter will turn to the standard practices of the community and write pages upon pages of corollary analysis, hoping that the intractable issue will magically vanish. Finally, the interpreter will stick to their decision and defend it as the sole logical solution.

The chapter introduces the idea of creative intuition and interpretation before summarising the book's contents. At the heart of this book is the idea of comparative intuition. People in general, and social scientists in particular, are engaged in ‘constant comparison’. Comparison is what enables us to make sense of events as they unfold across time and space. Interpretive research offers a distinctive approach to the comparative intuition because it consciously offers interpretations of interpretations. This chapter has five substantive sections. First, we outline our basic argument for a consciously and explicitly comparative interpretive approach. Second, we provide a brief summary of the interpretive approach. Third, we seek to justify the rigour and sensitivity of a comparative interpretive orientation. Fourth, we foreshadow in greater depth the structure of the book and detail of its component chapters. Finally, we provide guidance for readers on how to use the book, and in particular on how to combine its insights with those stemming from canonical texts in the field.

Research integrity means conducting science in such a way that others can be confident in the methods we used and trust the findings we report. In addition to our responsibility to understand and comply with the ethical and legal obligations associated with our research, research integrity involves scrupulous honesty and the highest standards of rigour. However, a combination of our own biases, distorted career incentives, poor understanding of study design, and misuse of statistical analysis lead to practices that damage science (questionable research practices). Such practices undermine the validity of studies and increase the chance of erroneous results, leading to a literature based on false positive conclusions and studies that can’t be replicated. The inability to replicate the findings of published studies has been popularised as the replication crisis, particularly in medicine and psychology. In this chapter, I first define research misconduct and its consequences. I then review responsible practices and how to avoid questionable research practices. We’ll revisit these issues throughout the book.