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

blogs.unpad.ac.id
from blogs.unpad.ac.id More from this publisher
16.11.2014 Views

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 ininsider’ 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

<strong>Qualitative</strong> research <strong>in</strong> practice<br />

<strong>the</strong>m and also allows a cool<strong>in</strong>g off period, <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>y may still<br />

change <strong>the</strong>ir m<strong>in</strong>d about participat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> study.<br />

Where <strong>the</strong> research topic has <strong>the</strong> potential to be distress<strong>in</strong>g for<br />

<strong>the</strong> participant, it is important to work out a plan to deal with such<br />

distress should it arise. An immediate issue is to be clear about <strong>the</strong><br />

participant’s right to term<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview at any time. Often<br />

human research ethics committees will require that provision be<br />

made for referral to a tra<strong>in</strong>ed professional should participants<br />

become distressed or disturbed dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> research.<br />

This is relatively straightforward where participants have been<br />

recruited through a professional agency. At o<strong>the</strong>r times it may be<br />

necessary for <strong>the</strong> researcher to set up an arrangement with an<br />

agency for referral. This should always be discussed with participants,<br />

<strong>in</strong> order to work out a process for this to happen. For<br />

example, under what circumstances might referral occur—would it<br />

be self-referral only or would <strong>the</strong>re be circumstances <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong><br />

researcher might make a referral on behalf of <strong>the</strong> participant? The<br />

decisions made will depend very much on <strong>the</strong> research topic, on<br />

whe<strong>the</strong>r appropriate resources are readily available and on <strong>the</strong><br />

capacity of participants to access <strong>the</strong>m, as well as <strong>the</strong> vulnerability<br />

of <strong>the</strong> participant group and <strong>the</strong> wishes of <strong>in</strong>dividual participants.<br />

The <strong>in</strong>terview<br />

While <strong>in</strong>terviews do vary <strong>in</strong> terms of how focused <strong>the</strong>y are and <strong>the</strong><br />

extent to which participants are encouraged to ‘direct’ <strong>the</strong> flow of<br />

<strong>the</strong> conversation, <strong>the</strong> idea of an ‘unstructured’ <strong>in</strong>terview is really a<br />

myth. Every <strong>in</strong>terview, no matter how free flow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> terms of<br />

topics and <strong>the</strong> order <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong>y are covered, has a structure of<br />

some sort. The <strong>in</strong>terview itself is a structured social <strong>in</strong>teraction—<strong>the</strong><br />

very act of sett<strong>in</strong>g it up br<strong>in</strong>gs its own structure and context. There<br />

would be little po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> conduct<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>terview if <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviewer<br />

did not have some idea of why <strong>the</strong>y wanted to talk with that person<br />

and of what <strong>the</strong>y would like to talk about. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, if <strong>the</strong><br />

researcher imposes too much structure, many of <strong>the</strong> advantages of<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>-depth <strong>in</strong>terview will be dim<strong>in</strong>ished. There is a f<strong>in</strong>e l<strong>in</strong>e<br />

between hav<strong>in</strong>g enough structure to facilitate talk (why are we<br />

here?) and impos<strong>in</strong>g a structure that becomes constra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong><br />

participant. The extent to which <strong>in</strong>terviews are focused depends on<br />

many th<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> purpose of <strong>the</strong> study, <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong><br />

56

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!