I'm coming at this from a therapist's angle (as well as researcher - though 
not a pure BNIM ...).

When listening to a client, we are trained in active listening skills. This 
includes questioning (to clarify, focus, challenge, summarise etc etc), so I 
had to learn to switch this function OFF when interviewing for research 
purposes. Listening to/transcribing one's first interview usually teaches 
one this!

Also, we are trained in awareness of what is going on inside us (my reading 
of what you call the inner monologue/dialogue). And try and box it:
- emotional responses (don't react - but be aware and note down to assess 
and process later),
- immediate cognitive responses to the material as it arises (what is the 
speaker trying to convey? did s/he say "slip" or "sleep"?),
- intellectual responses in light of the overall interview strategy (do I 
pick up on this point, or let it lie?),
- extraneous thoughts (mustn't forget to stop off for petrol on the way 
home),
- bodily functions (shouldn't have drunk all that coffee, this chair is no 
good for my back ...)
and so on!

"How I learned to stop worrying and love the chaos", perhaps.

My own struggles when doing my doctoral interviewing (2 years ago now, 
interviewing 9 therapists twice each) were mostly around the border 
territory that makes up the researcher-participant relationship - when to 
listen empathically and work to connect (and so facilitate richer 
stories/reflections), when to listen, connect and accept (even if 
morally/intellectually/emotionally challenging), and when to judge, as the 
researcher/analyst.

Learning to accept my own judgementalism helped me learn to be more 
in-the-moment with my interviewees (which then, I believe, made me a better 
therapist). I had to accept that although analysis/judgement should, 
procedurally, come AFTER the interview stage, in practice, I couldn't (and 
shouldn't) stop my own personal judgements coming into my mind! But that too 
was material to work with, in the analysis and discussion.

We are, necessarily, acceptant human beings (and researchers). We are also, 
necessarily, judging. Keeping the two working in harmony, and making use of 
the disharmony when it comes, was the dance. For me (as a counselling 
psychologist).





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "tom wengraf" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: listening, in the context of interviewing


>A lot depends on the structure of the interview, which depends on the
> implicit epistemology (even ontology) of the research project and you as 
> the
> the interviewer.
>
> In a normal semi-structured interview, the normal practice is to have in 
> the
> mind's repertoire a whole range of questioning modes so that, while your
> interviewee is answering your last question, you are constantly 
> interpreting
> the answer and processing possibilities in your mind ready to choose one 
> of
> the many instruments from your repertoire in order to interrogate further.
>
> The implicit model can be that of a contest in which your task is to dance
> around the interviewee and 'sting' them in the right way so that they give
> up their secrets, show themselves to have contradictory attitudes, admit
> they don't know what they're talking about, etc. It is fitted for the
> 'argument culture' (Deborah Tannen) and for the late medieval/early
> Renaissance model of science that "nature has to be tortured to give up 
> her
> secrets".
>
> In biographic-narrative interpretive interviews (BNIM interviews, see 
> below
> for details), there are three sessions in which quite different things
> happen.
>
> In BNIM interviews, in subsession 1, the interviewer asks one 
> open-narrative
> question (roughly equivalent to "tell me your story of X") and then is not
> allowed to ask any further questions until the interviewer has finished
> their story 10 minutes or 90 minutes or whatever later. They are only
> allowed to facilitate the telling but never by giving any direction (never
> "can you tell me more about this, less about that") even if requested to 
> do
> so. It is the interviewee who decides when this "initial narration" is
> complete, never the interviewer.
>
> All the interviewer does in BNIM sub-session 1 is to listen, to make
> supportive noises, and to make notes of key words and phrases. Since there
> are no "further questions" or "interpretive comments" to be made, the
> "coming action" side of the interviewer's mind is de-activated.
>
> In BNIM sub-session 2, the interviewer picks up on some or all of the
> key-phrases of the interviewee and asks further questions. You would 
> expect
> the "active interpretive side" of the interviewer's brain to start working
> in the way that Leasa describes so well. In fact, certain restrictions
> operate here to keep this level of 'activation' to quite a minimum. What 
> are
> the restrictions:
>
> 1. In BNIM subsession 2, the interviewer only asks narrative questions, 
> only
> asks for "more story", more "details of story about how it all happened". 
> In
> terms of the choice of type of question they xcan ask, they have no 
> choice.
> This cuts out a lot of mentation.
>
> 2. They can only ask about for more story (detail) about items (phrases)
> that the interviewee has themselves raised. They cannot ask about items 
> that
> the interviewer has not themselves mentioned, and they can refer to the
> items raised only in respect of phrases the interviewee has used and theat
> the interviewer has noted down.
>
> 3. Therefore, the form of questioning used by the interviewer in BNIM
> sub-session 2 is pretty invariant. With minor exceptions, the further
> questioning in sub-session 2  runs "You said XXX [written down 
> cue-phrase];
> do you remember /anything/anything more/any more details/ about that
> particular [incident/time/period/...etc.]". --  For a more expanded 
> version
> of the working of sub-session 2, please write to me OFF-LIST (new email) 
> for
> a copy of the free BNIM SHORT GUIDE AND DETAILED MANUAL.
>
> This restriction to asking only narrative-form questions, indeed only one
> narrative-form question, in sub-session 2; to being able to only ask using
> phrases that you don't invent but that the interviewee themselves has 
> used;
> to being obliged (a point I didn't mention before) to stick rigidly to the
> order of phrases as they were spoken in the interview (you can't dart 
> around
> and go backwards: you can miss phrases out -- and always do -- but you 
> can't
> go back)...... all these reduce the requirement and the incentive to
> multi-task your mind and anxiously quicken its wit.
>
> Like slow meditative eating, slow food, this form of 'slow interviewing'
> gives freedom and time and space to both the interviewer and the 
> interviewee
> to think and remember. It takes a while for the inter viewer to adjust to
> BNIM 3 sub-session rules, but after the practice-rules are followed for a
> bit, the corresponding 'BNIM-listening' mind-set is brought into existence
> as a further resource for your mind.
>
> There is also a BNIM sub-session 3. This happens after you have left the
> first interview (where sub-sessions 1 and 2 happen as described above, 
> after
> you have listened to the recording (or read the transcript) and decided 
> what
> further questions you still have or have arisen because of thinking 
> (active
> interpretation) about their previous answers. All the 'activation' that
> Leasa describes as happening within ordinary interviews is postponed to 
> this
> period (might be a week or a month) in which you plan a further interview
> and a post-BNIM strategy for mostly non-narrative questions in sub-session
> 3.
>
> Many thanks, Leasa, for raising this very crucial question of how, as
> researchers,  you can enable yourself to listen without falling down on 
> the
> job by anxious self-interrogation and mentation. BNIM is one set of
> practice-rules that enable this to happen.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Tom
>
> P.S. Social science researchers. For a free electronic copy of the current
> version of the BNIM Short Guide and Detailed Manual , just open a new 
> email
> and write OFF-LIST to me at <[log in to unmask]> . Please indicate your
> institutional affiliation and the purpose for which you might envisage 
> using
> BNIM's open-narrative interviews, and  I'll send it straight away.
>
> It builds on and develops ch. 6 and 12  of  my earlier textbook,
> 'Qualitative Research Interviewing: biographic narrative and 
> semi-structured
> method' (2001 Sage Publications) which has a more general approach to
> semi-structured depth interviewing, interpretation,  and writing-up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qualitative Research for the Human Sciences
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leasa Kowalski Evinger
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: listening, in the context of interviewing
>
> Interviewing was the focus of the reading for my qualitative research
> class this week. I wasn't surprised to find "listening" among the
> considerations for conducting an interview.  I also did not surprise
> myself by immediately listing this as an anticipated challenge. I will
> admit that I personally have an ongoing dialogue in my head.  "What do I
> think about what is being said?  How do I process, archive, and respond to
> this information?  What will I say next?"  I recognize that I will need to
> quiet, or at least temper and manage, my inner monologue/dialogue when I
> am conducting interviews in order to be more present and to concentrate on
> the interviewee.  Are there any tips from those who would consider
> themselves seasoned interviewers that might help me to think about how to
> do this for myself?  I welcome your feedback and encourage you to share
> your own experiences or challenges.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this discussion group, send this message to
> [log in to unmask]: signoff QUALRS-L
> Direct requests for assistance with QUALRS-L subscriptions to
> [log in to unmask]
>