INTERVIEWING a

A NEO-POSITIVIST CONCEPTION OF THE INTERVIEW

Much of the advice literature on qualitative interviewing assumes that the interview subject has an inner or authentic self, not necessarily publicly visible, which may be revealed through careful questioning by an attentive and sensitive interviewer who contributes minimally to the talk (e.g., Foddy, 1993). In this approach, the skillful interviewer asks good questions, while carefully minimizing bias and researcher influences through taking a neutral role. By taking this approach in the interview interaction, it is thought that quality data will be generated from which valid findings may be produced...

A ROMANTIC CONCEPTION OF INTERVIEWING

The assumption that interviewers can minimize their influence on the generation of data has been questioned for several decades (see Mishler, 1986; Oakley, 1981, for examples). In contrast to a neo-positivist conception of interviewing, a romantic perspective recognizes, if not celebrates, the place of the researcher in the study (e.g., Douglas, 1985). This has led to methodological writing on qualitative inter- views that proposes a ‘romantic’ conception of interviewing (Alvesson, 2003; see also Silverman’s, 2001 discussion of ‘emotionalist’ approaches to research) in which the interviewer (IR) is open about his/her interests in the research topic, and will readily express this within the interview setting when called upon by the interviewee (IE).

In contrast to the neo-positivist conception of the interview, when used for the purposes of social research, the IR-IE relationship in the romantic interview is one in which genuine rapport and trust is established by the IR in order to generate the kind of conversation that is intimate and self-revealing. A romantic conceptualization of interviewing will lead the interviewer to work to establish rapport and empathic connection with the interviewee in order to produce intimate conversation between the IR and IE in which the IR plays an active role. This generates IE’s self revelations and ‘true’ confessions which will generate data to produce in-depth interpretations of participants’ life worlds. Data are frequently coded and categorized to produce thematic accounts; or subject to various narrative analytic methods to produce evocative narrative accounts concerning the participants’ life worlds. Research draws on a variety of theoretical perspectives for data analysis, such as feminist, phenomenological, psychoanalytic, and psycho-social theories. [...] Similarly to the neo-positivist conception of interviewing, a feature in the romantic conception of interviewing is the assumption that researchers are able to access the authentic selves of interview subjects via interview talk. This view has been questioned by researchers taking constructionist and postmodernist perspectives to interviews...

A CONSTRUCTIONIST CONCEPTION OF THE INTERVIEW

From a constructionist perspective, the interview is a social setting in which data are co-constructed by an IR and IE to generate situated accountings and possible ways of talking about research topics (Silverman, 2001). Data provides access to particular versions of affairs produced by interlocutors on specific occasions. Baker (2002: 781) explains that rather than analyzing interview talk as ‘reports’ corresponding to matters outside the interview – that is, what people actually believe, observe, or do – if treated as ‘accounts,’ we can investigate the ‘sense- making work through which participants engage in explaining, attributing, justifying, describing, and otherwise finding possible sense or orderliness in the various events, people, places, and courses of action they talk about.’ [...]

A POSTMODERN CONCEPTION OF THE INTERVIEW

Denzin promotes a fourth version of the research interview, which I call here the ‘postmodern’ interview (see Fontana and Frey, 2005; Fontana and Prokos, 2007). Denzin (2001: 24) has conceptualized the interview as a ‘vehicle for producing performance texts and performance ethnographies about self and society,’ rather than a ‘method for gathering information.’ In contrast to an authentic self produced in an interview with the skilful interviewer as in the neo-positivist and romantic models, this interview subject has no essential self, but provides – in relationship with a particular interviewer – various non-unitary performances of selves (Denzin, 2001: 28–9). Indeed, Scheurich (1995: 249) writes that ‘[t]he indeterminate totality of the interview always exceeds and transgresses our attempts to capture and categorize.’ [...]

A TRANSFORMATIVE CONCEPTION OF INTERVIEWING

In that Denzin’s proposal of a ‘new interpretive form’ for the research interview challenges its audiences to reconsider the world in new and critical ways, and promotes a conception of a research interview as ‘dialogical,’ there are some overlaps with the openly transformational intent in the next conception of the interview outlined below. I use the term ‘transformative’ to denote work in which the researcher intentionally aims to challenge and change the understandings of participants. Wolgemuth and Donohue (2006: 1024), for example, argue for conducting ‘emancipatory narrative research with the explicit intent of transforming participants’ lives by opening up new subjective possibilities.’ This work contributes to emancipatory and social justice work in that it assists in transformation of the parties to the talk, as well as generating data for research purposes. From this perspective, the IR dialogues with the IE and may work in collaboration to design, conduct and present the research project. The IR and IE develop ‘transformed’ or ‘enlightened’ understandings as an outcome of dialogical interaction, and interpretations of data produce critical readings that challenge normative discourses....

Similarly to the postmodern conception of interviewing, researchers working from a transformative perspective aim to challenge their audiences. However, these researchers go a step further, and purposefully challenge themselves and the participants of studies to think critically about the topics of investigation. This, then, is a central focus for demonstrating quality – that researchers have worked to communicate with participants and audiences, and have been successful in fostering productive dialogue and action contributing to social justice goals...

A DECOLONIZING CONCEPTION OF INTERVIEWING

When Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999: 98) writes that decolonization of indigenous peoples ‘is now recognized as a long-term process involving bureaucratic, cultural, linguistic and psychological divesting of colonial power,’ she is also writing about research practices. In her influential book, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Smith shows how western research practices that have objectified and endangered indigenous peoples throughout the world are an integral part of European colonialism. These practices, Smith asserts, have largely been experienced negatively by those who have been the objects (see also Stronach, 2006, who addresses imperialism as a contemporary and continuing phenomenon in research). Negative experiences with whites – research included – have led many indigenous people to mistrust non-indigenous peoples, researchers, and research itself (Smith, 1999).

According to Smith (1999: 116–18), the indigenous research agenda involves the processes of decolonization, transformation, mobilization, and healing. She writes, that these ‘are not goals or ends in themselves,’ but ‘processes which connect, inform and clarify the tensions between the local, the regional and the global ... that can be incorporated into practices and methodologies’ (Smith, 1999: 116). Further, she asserts that indigenous peoples are moving through the conditions of survival, recovery, development, and self-determination (p. 116). Thus any researcher planning to conduct research with indigenous peoples must thoroughly consider the issues outlined above, realizing that to be ‘culturally sensitive’ and to follow ethical codes of research conduct simply may not be enough...

Researchers’ theoretical assumptions about qualitative interviews have implications for how research interviews are structured, the kinds of research questions made possible, the kinds of interview questions posed, how data might be analysed and represented, how research projects are designed and conducted, and how the quality of research is judged by the communities of practice in which work is situated. On one hand, we can visualize interviewers who aim to take a detached and neutral role in relation to research participants, aiming for the generation of ‘objective’ knowledge concerning what people ‘really believe and experience’; while on the other hand, we can envision interviewers who position themselves as co-constructors of knowledge, striving to develop collaborative relationships with interviewees to initiate some form of social change. There are many other possible positions. While there is much debate with respect to the limitations and merits of each of the perspectives to interviewing outlined in this article, by seriously considering how different theoretical stances on qualitative interviewing treat the design and conduct of interviews, the analyses and representations of findings, and the demonstration of quality (Freeman et al., 2007), novice qualitative researchers can make informed decisions concerning research design and methods, what kinds of research questions might be posed, how interview questions are formulated, and appropriate ways to analyse and represent interview data.

Source: Roulston, K. (2010) "Considering Quality in Qualitative Interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10 (2): 199-228.