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
In-depth interviewing There is a related risk that the interviewer will think they know what the participant means and impose assumptions on the data without checking them out with participants. This can especially be an issue in ‘insider’ research, where researchers may assume shared understandings between themselves and the participants. Similarly, participants may be constrained and potentially self-censor what they say as a result of presumed, but mistaken or incomplete, shared understandings between them and the researcher. Miller and Glassner (1997) suggest that too close an identification with one position in relation to the social phenomenon being investigated may restrict ‘which cultural stories interviewees may tell and how these may be told’ (1997, p. 104). To enable people to tell their stories, in their way, there needs to be an openness to whatever perspective may emerge. Where differences between the researcher and those being interviewed are such that rapport may not be easily established—differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender, disability, dress or language—and where resources allow, it is well worth employing interviewers who share more of the characteristics of the study group than the researcher. In her study of the experiences, attitudes and values of streetfrequenting young people of non-English speaking background in Sydney, Pe-Pua (1996) hired bilingual interviewers from among street workers, youth workers and street-frequenting young people and used them to recruit as well as interview young people. The initial contact Prior to meeting the researcher, prospective participants have presumably been sufficiently interested to respond to information they have received about a study, but have not yet consented to participate. The initial contact (we prefer a face-to-face meeting) is their opportunity to find out more about the study, to ask any questions they may have and, most importantly, to meet the person with whom they are being asked to talk about themselves. If interviews are to be taped, it is important that permission is obtained at this stage. Once discussion about the research process is exhausted, and the prospective participant indicates they would like to proceed, they can then be asked to sign a formal consent form. Ideally, this meeting will take place on a separate day to the interview as this gives the participant time to follow-up any further questions that may arise for 55
Qualitative research in practice them and also allows a cooling off period, in which they may still change their mind about participating in the study. Where the research topic has the potential to be distressing for the participant, it is important to work out a plan to deal with such distress should it arise. An immediate issue is to be clear about the participant’s right to terminate the interview at any time. Often human research ethics committees will require that provision be made for referral to a trained professional should participants become distressed or disturbed during the course of the research. This is relatively straightforward where participants have been recruited through a professional agency. At other times it may be necessary for the researcher to set up an arrangement with an agency for referral. This should always be discussed with participants, in order to work out a process for this to happen. For example, under what circumstances might referral occur—would it be self-referral only or would there be circumstances in which the researcher might make a referral on behalf of the participant? The decisions made will depend very much on the research topic, on whether appropriate resources are readily available and on the capacity of participants to access them, as well as the vulnerability of the participant group and the wishes of individual participants. The interview While interviews do vary in terms of how focused they are and the extent to which participants are encouraged to ‘direct’ the flow of the conversation, the idea of an ‘unstructured’ interview is really a myth. Every interview, no matter how free flowing in terms of topics and the order in which they are covered, has a structure of some sort. The interview itself is a structured social interaction—the very act of setting it up brings its own structure and context. There would be little point in conducting an interview if the interviewer did not have some idea of why they wanted to talk with that person and of what they would like to talk about. On the other hand, if the researcher imposes too much structure, many of the advantages of the in-depth interview will be diminished. There is a fine line between having enough structure to facilitate talk (why are we here?) and imposing a structure that becomes constraining for the participant. The extent to which interviews are focused depends on many things, including the purpose of the study, the nature of the 56
- Page 22 and 23: From practice to research in relati
- Page 24 and 25: From practice to research consumer
- Page 26 and 27: From practice to research parent—
- Page 28 and 29: From practice to research space—t
- Page 30 and 31: From practice to research what peop
- Page 32 and 33: From practice to research developed
- Page 34 and 35: From practice to research or exit f
- Page 36 and 37: From practice to research tracked d
- Page 38 and 39: 2 Ethics and organisations The best
- Page 40 and 41: Ethics and organisations relevant i
- Page 42 and 43: Ethics and organisations Informed c
- Page 44 and 45: Ethics and organisations Yet a mino
- Page 46 and 47: Ethics and organisations Observatio
- Page 48 and 49: Ethics and organisations Ethical an
- Page 50 and 51: Ethics and organisations with the s
- Page 52 and 53: Ethics and organisations Dorothy Sc
- Page 54 and 55: Ethics and organisations happened,
- Page 56 and 57: Ethics and organisations an intensi
- Page 58 and 59: Ethics and organisations to outside
- Page 60 and 61: Ethics and organisations Yvonne: To
- Page 62 and 63: Ethics and organisations Dorothy: R
- Page 64 and 65: Ethics and organisations can only e
- Page 66 and 67: In-depth interviewing them or not m
- Page 68 and 69: In-depth interviewing Stories give
- Page 70 and 71: In-depth interviewing experience of
- Page 74 and 75: In-depth interviewing data sought,
- Page 76 and 77: In-depth interviewing interview. Th
- Page 78 and 79: In-depth interviewing Generally, th
- Page 80 and 81: In-depth interviewing in-depth inte
- Page 82 and 83: In-depth interviewing Yvonne: So a
- Page 84 and 85: In-depth interviewing Sampling Yvon
- Page 86 and 87: In-depth interviewing much they tal
- Page 88 and 89: In-depth interviewing encouraged mu
- Page 90 and 91: In-depth interviewing contact, the
- Page 92 and 93: Observation Choosing observation Li
- Page 94 and 95: Observation The observation process
- Page 96 and 97: Observation When to observe and for
- Page 98 and 99: Observation Anne Coleman—Five sta
- Page 100 and 101: Observation Yvonne: Anne: Yvonne: A
- Page 102 and 103: Observation Anne: Another useful th
- Page 104 and 105: Observation couldn’t understand h
- Page 106 and 107: Observation interesting because I s
- Page 108 and 109: Observation of questions separate f
- Page 110 and 111: Tailoring data collection We focus
- Page 112 and 113: Tailoring data collection The exper
- Page 114 and 115: Tailoring data collection be achiev
- Page 116 and 117: Tailoring data collection Making us
- Page 118 and 119: Tailoring data collection children
- Page 120 and 121: Tailoring data collection collectio
In-depth <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g<br />
There is a related risk that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviewer will th<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong>y know<br />
what <strong>the</strong> participant means and impose assumptions on <strong>the</strong> data<br />
without check<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m out with participants. This can especially be<br />
an issue <strong>in</strong> ‘<strong>in</strong>sider’ research, where researchers may assume shared<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>gs between <strong>the</strong>mselves and <strong>the</strong> participants. Similarly,<br />
participants may be constra<strong>in</strong>ed and potentially self-censor what<br />
<strong>the</strong>y say as a result of presumed, but mistaken or <strong>in</strong>complete, shared<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>gs between <strong>the</strong>m and <strong>the</strong> researcher. Miller and<br />
Glassner (1997) suggest that too close an identification with one<br />
position <strong>in</strong> relation to <strong>the</strong> social phenomenon be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>vestigated<br />
may restrict ‘which cultural stories <strong>in</strong>terviewees may tell and how<br />
<strong>the</strong>se may be told’ (1997, p. 104).<br />
To enable people to tell <strong>the</strong>ir stories, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir way, <strong>the</strong>re needs to<br />
be an openness to whatever perspective may emerge. Where differences<br />
between <strong>the</strong> researcher and those be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terviewed are such<br />
that rapport may not be easily established—differences of race,<br />
ethnicity, age, gender, disability, dress or language—and where<br />
resources allow, it is well worth employ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terviewers who share<br />
more of <strong>the</strong> characteristics of <strong>the</strong> study group than <strong>the</strong> researcher.<br />
In her study of <strong>the</strong> experiences, attitudes and values of streetfrequent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
young people of non-English speak<strong>in</strong>g background <strong>in</strong><br />
Sydney, Pe-Pua (1996) hired bil<strong>in</strong>gual <strong>in</strong>terviewers from among<br />
street workers, youth workers and street-frequent<strong>in</strong>g young people<br />
and used <strong>the</strong>m to recruit as well as <strong>in</strong>terview young people.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>itial contact<br />
Prior to meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> researcher, prospective participants have<br />
presumably been sufficiently <strong>in</strong>terested to respond to <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
<strong>the</strong>y have received about a study, but have not yet consented to<br />
participate. The <strong>in</strong>itial contact (we prefer a face-to-face meet<strong>in</strong>g) is<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir opportunity to f<strong>in</strong>d out more about <strong>the</strong> study, to ask any questions<br />
<strong>the</strong>y may have and, most importantly, to meet <strong>the</strong> person with<br />
whom <strong>the</strong>y are be<strong>in</strong>g asked to talk about <strong>the</strong>mselves. If <strong>in</strong>terviews<br />
are to be taped, it is important that permission is obta<strong>in</strong>ed at this<br />
stage. Once discussion about <strong>the</strong> research process is exhausted, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> prospective participant <strong>in</strong>dicates <strong>the</strong>y would like to proceed, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
can <strong>the</strong>n be asked to sign a formal consent form. Ideally, this meet<strong>in</strong>g<br />
will take place on a separate day to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview as this gives <strong>the</strong><br />
participant time to follow-up any fur<strong>the</strong>r questions that may arise for<br />
55