 |
 |
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]