What might it mean to be an "Interpretivist"?

Attention to “interpretivism” has become a vital topic in the methodological conversations that this new APSA section both reflects and promotes.  However it remains unclear just what is meant by talk of an interpretive approach.  This ambiguity leaves some political scientists skeptical as to whether interpretivists study topics or employ methods that involve more than a rhetorical break with established practices in the discipline.  I believe that interpretivism can and should be taken as a distinctive approach to political science, but that it is incumbent upon interpretivists to articulate more specifically just what their underlying commitments are and how these diverge from those of other approaches.  As I see it, the test of any such articulation will be whether it can persuade skeptics that something distinctive really is being proposed.