Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad
Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad
Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
In-depth <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong>m or not must be made <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> data<br />
sought and <strong>the</strong> practical constra<strong>in</strong>ts of <strong>the</strong> research context. The best<br />
data collection approach for any study is that which will yield data<br />
that best meet <strong>the</strong> research purpose and answer <strong>the</strong> research questions.<br />
Sometimes <strong>in</strong>terviews will be most appropriate, sometimes<br />
observation or <strong>the</strong> analysis of exist<strong>in</strong>g records. These are unlikely to<br />
be all-or-noth<strong>in</strong>g questions, though. In many cases, a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of<br />
approaches will be <strong>in</strong>dicated—to answer different parts of <strong>the</strong><br />
research question, or to provide an alternative data source that may<br />
serve to streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> overall f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs. Very often <strong>the</strong> researcher<br />
will have to weigh up <strong>the</strong> pros and cons of a number of approaches<br />
and make <strong>the</strong> best choice available <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> circumstances.<br />
In-depth <strong>in</strong>terviews do, however, have particular strengths.<br />
First, <strong>the</strong>y share <strong>the</strong> general advantages of face-to-face <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Their immediacy and relational quality afford considerable flexibility<br />
to <strong>the</strong> data collection process, both <strong>in</strong> terms of areas explored<br />
and <strong>the</strong> direction of <strong>the</strong> discussion. On this po<strong>in</strong>t, Brenner, Brown<br />
and Canter say:<br />
Probably <strong>the</strong> central value of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview as a research procedure is<br />
that it allows both parties to explore <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> questions and<br />
answers <strong>in</strong>volved. There is an implicit, or explicit shar<strong>in</strong>g and/or<br />
negotiation of understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview situation which is not<br />
so central, and often not present, <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r research procedures. Any<br />
misunderstand<strong>in</strong>gs on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviewer or <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviewee<br />
can be checked immediately <strong>in</strong> a way that is just not possible when<br />
questionnaires are be<strong>in</strong>g completed, or tests are be<strong>in</strong>g performed<br />
(Brenner, Brown & Canter, 1985, p. 3).<br />
The advantage of be<strong>in</strong>g able to clarify what <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r means, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
and <strong>the</strong>n, is arguably more apparent <strong>the</strong> less structured and more<br />
conversational <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview process.<br />
Holste<strong>in</strong> and Gubrium talk of <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g as an active,<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g-mak<strong>in</strong>g process.<br />
Both parties to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview are necessarily and <strong>in</strong>eluctably active.<br />
Mean<strong>in</strong>g is not merely elicited by apt question<strong>in</strong>g, nor simply<br />
transported through respondent replies; it is actively and<br />
communicatively assembled <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview encounter. Respondents<br />
are not so much repositories of knowledge—treasuries of <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
await<strong>in</strong>g excavation, so to speak—as <strong>the</strong>y are constructors of<br />
knowledge <strong>in</strong> collaboration with <strong>in</strong>terviewers (Holste<strong>in</strong> & Gubrium,<br />
1997, p. 114).<br />
49