|
MSc
Sport and Health Sciences
Qualitative
Research
Conducting and experiencing a personal narrative
interview
Nick Sherriff
If as
Holloway suggests the qualitative interview is indeed ‘conversation
with a
purpose’ then surely the purpose is to learn something about the person
interviewed. But as Kolb offers, ‘experience in
itself does not guarantee learning [rather] In order to
learn from our experience we must reflect on our experiences…’ (1994).
Moreover, others like
Mezirow
(1981) and Rogers further posit that not only is
‘reflection’
crucial but in fact it is ‘critical reflection’ (1986) that must act
upon the
experience [the interview] thus facilitating learning.
The
notion of reflection plays a crucial part in not only the qualitative
process
but is indicative to the idea of a semi-structured interview. Schon
concurs
suggesting that there are two types of reflection; a live or instant
reflection
that is about thinking on your feet in the here and now, and a
retrospective
kind of reflection that he refers to as ‘reflection on action’ (1987),
after
the event if you like. The former is directly linked and embedded into
the
semi-structured interview whereby the interviewer is constantly
reappraising
the information within the conversation. As such the reflection informs
the
next set of questions to be asked or topic area to be investigated in a
similar
way to that of Kemmis (1985), Reid (1993) and Johns (1995) who offer
the
elements of change or action planning for change that results from
analysis,
review and evaluation. They further suggest that the process is active
in that
the interviewer is actively engaged in a learning process during the
interview
gaining a new perspective on the interviewee’s situation. Therefore
reflection
is necessary in order to keep up with the learning process, as you
learn more
about the person you are interviewing your interest moves and the style
and
type of questions you ask flows with the conversation. Such constant
reappraisal allows for the focus to remain within the general topic
area and to
ensure that information gained is useful for the study.
The latter notion
of ‘reflection on action’ (Schon. 1987) may be
considered as a more holistic approach not only for the interviewer but
probably for the interviewee. After the interview there is the
opportunity for
both parties to step back and dwell upon the process as a whole akin
the work
of Louden who posits,
‘[Reflection is a]… serious and sober thought at some
distance from action and has
connotations similar to "meditation" and "introspection ".
It is a mental process which takes place out of the stream of action,
looking
forward or (usually) back to actions that have taken place’ (1991).
This piece of work
will therefore use the latter type of reflection in order to learn
something from
the interview process.
Rationale for choosing the participant
A more
conscious effort than one might first think especially given that
interviews
are often considered relationships (Esterberg. 2002:84). Furthermore it
is
generally accepted that relationships take time and evolve over the
period
(Tuckman. 1965). Although it has been suggested ‘we live in an
interview society…’
(Gubrium & Holstein. 1995), people know what an interview is and
they
therefore come in to it with some preconceptions. The decision was
taken to
interview someone whom I could relate to. It was also suggested that a
more
mature interviewee of similar age to the interviewer was more likely to
offer a
greater depth of information which would probably have been
pre-narrated in a
similar fashion to that of McAdams (1993), whereby; ‘Maturity demands
the
acceptance and meaningful organisation of past events (cited Crossley
2000:67).
In addition there was already a brief but encouraging relationship
developing
between interviewee (HM) and the interviewer (NS) that seemed rather
natural
and comfortable. Both had an avid interest in sport and came from
geographically similar parts of the country thus a relationship had
already
formed (Tuckman. 1965) prior to the interview. It is also worth noting
that the
early ‘forming’ stage of the relationship development had meant that
only a
limited amount of information had been exchanged between us prior to
interview,
therefore a kind of freshness still existed which manifested in a real
interest
in the conversation.
Full transcript
See Appendix
Reflections on the
process
The type
of interview chosen was semi-structured allowing for more flexibility
to
explore the topic and facilitating greater openness for the interviewee
to
express his opinions (Esterberg. 2002:87). This can empower the
interviewee to
a certain extent and is necessary as Patton (1990) posits ‘… we can’t
observe
everything we might want to know. Thus, we interview people to
understand what
life is like from perspectives other than our own.’ This is something
that
seems difficult to predict and therefore structure, as such the
semi-structured
interview hands over the narrative and its direction to the
interviewee. The
relationship is actually more akin to that of author and publisher with
control
being somewhat governed by the publisher [interviewer]. This does
appear to be
more productive for the interviewer and provides just enough authorial
constraint to keep the interviewee from straying too far from the
researchers
study. Esterberg concurs suggesting, ‘the process resembles a dance, in
which
one partner must be carefully attuned to the other’s movements.’
(2002:87)
This
metaphor is almost perfect as you are taken by the interviewee on a
journey
unknown to you but like the ‘dance’ one [interviewer] must try hard not
to lead
the interviewee although it is acknowledged that some form of steering
may be
required in order to manoeuvre the conversation towards particular
topics of
interest.
In
reality keeping up with the ‘dance’ was problematic (Esterberg. 1990)
with the
apparent ad hoc order of the information coming from the interviewee
especially
when they were ‘on a role.’ ‘…the interviewee’s responses shape the
order and
structure of the interview.’ (1990:88) As such the interviewer needs to
listen
very carefully to the responses to be able to follow up on the
potential leads
that often come two or three at a time. I spent much of the time
highlighting
particular points of interest to further explore, to revisit or to
disregard
[as well as listen].
There
were also elements of Esterberg’s distance (1990:90)in that I often
found
myself somewhat detached and listening to two voices both the
interviewee and
at the same time my own inner voice remarking on interesting points,
making mental
references of topics, contradictions and questions to ask next.
Furthermore
such pleasant and mechanical detachment (1990) felt very unnatural with
many
subconscious non-verbal communications suddenly becoming very
intrinsically
noticeable.
Mental statements
reiterating
pleasantries like remember to smile, nod in agreement made for an
unpredictably
visceral experience.
‘Interviewing
is rather like marriage: everybody knows what it is, an awful lot of
people do
it, and yet behind each closed front door there is a world of secrets.’
(Oakley. 1981)
I have to
agree, such soliloquies were very much alien, rather unnerving and
definitely
unexpected. These more internal, private, reflective and contemplative
voices (Pendergast.
2003) are according to Athens,
‘…a
conversation between an "I"
and a "me". The "I" represents the impulse or inner urge to
act, as well as the later expression of the impulse in overt action. .
.
.Conversely, the "me" represents the perspective of the other from
which
the "I" is viewed. (1994: 521)
This
rather complicated definition is in fact quite accurate explaining the
duality
of the interviewer who is at any one time both ‘chat show host’ and
focused
researcher. I found the notion of ‘I’ asking academic questions and
‘me’ forcing
the ‘I’ to remain more tactful and conversational thus the entire
interview was
a compromise between then two. It does feel as if a real skill is
needed here in
the careful configuration of these two positions in order to get the
most out
of the interview.
The
mechanics of the process included an interview
guide with loose topic areas and
the style of questioning to use for such topics in order to elicit more
than a dichotomous
yes/no response. As this was a semi structured interview which
attempted to
‘enter… the psychological and social world of the respondent’ (Smith.
1995:12)
an element of narrative freedom was given to the interviewee that
facilitated
the building of rapport and confidence. Furthermore McAdams protocol
was used
for such a guide encompassing eight specific areas of coverage. It must
be
remembered however that the interviewer is free to investigate any
interesting issues
that may arise and no actual chronological order is necessary for the
protocol
sequence. (Crossley. 2000:70) This was greatly apparent with the
interviewee
leaping seemingly [to me] ad hoc from issue to issue. Of course this is
quite
natural and why the guide is so important to even act like a check list
with
the interviewer cross referencing the respondent’s issues, subjects and
topics
with the master interview protocol guide. Moreover this loose guide
kept the
interview very conversational and allowed a degree of flow for the
interviewee;
he was able to say relatively whatever came into his mind. As such I
felt a real
sense of story telling with the interviewee speaking with passion and
zeal.
Such
mechanics included a rehearsal at least in terms of equipment and venue
which
proved essential as the power supply was over the other side of the
room
therefore chairs etc had to be moved and the water cooler bubbling away
was
picked up by the tape machine as such I turned the cooler off for the
interview. I further provided refreshments in an attempt to get the
interviewee
to relax which did seem to at least break the ice.
Rationale for choosing the listener
‘If
meaning is social, if it exists in the dialogue, then it legitimately
depends,
to a significant extent, on the person who listens’ (Sass. 1988 cited
in
Crossley.2000:68). Furthermore the choice of the listener is in fact a
bigger
deal than choosing who to interview, of course both roles have their
merits and
issues but choosing a listener seems a bit like religious confession
without
the confidentiality – it matters who knows! Crossley goes on to point
out the
problematic nature of openness with family members as listeners
offering their closeness
and ‘involvement in events’ can limit how open you actually are with
them. My
particular listener was old enough to manage the information discussed
with
maturity and integrity similar to that of McAdams who further posits
the
listener should be able to be ‘enthusiastic, affirming and
non-judgemental…’
(1993:225). McAdams point about enthusiasm is well made for it was the
enthusiasm of my listener not only for the task but for the concept of
a
personal narrative that confirmed my choice.
Reflections on the
process of being interviewed
Over the
years I have been involved in many interviews usually I was the one
conducting
the interview although my seniority does suggest that I have had my
fair share
of job interviews and have therefore the experience of sitting on the
other
side of the fence. This however was different in part due to the
subject matter
– my life. I found the interview a rather mixed experience with a
keenness to
express parts of my life but definite caution about others. This did
dominate
the initial few minutes of the interview until the interviewer had won
me over
gaining a sort of trust, although how this happened I am unsure,
possibly it
was the connection or rapport (Esterberg. 2002:103) felt between
interviewee
and interviewer. Once this trust had been established a certain amount
of flow
was experienced or at least a willingness to tell stories because that
was what
it felt like; the telling of a collection of stories that made up my
life.
However like the sense of smell that has the instantaneous ability to
transport
your imagination back to previous encounters with such smells, so the
stories
seemed to a have a similar effect and I found I was recalling tales I
had not
thought about for years. It also felt good; not during the telling but
afterwards and shortly afterwards at that; in fact as the tape was
turned off. However,
was this joyful exuberance in a cathartic fashion or was it relief that
I had
escaped unscathed is debatable, after all I am unlikely to admit to my
masculine self that I have found my feminine side and disclosed my
emotions. I
did ask the interviewer to follow the interview protocol guide from
McAdams and
initially the questions were fine but as we neared the latter part of
the
interview the topic areas got a little too personal. Questions about
stress and
personal ideology I found difficult to answer honestly or at least tell
the
whole truth. This was in part due to my own personal issues that are
still [I
think] to be resolved. there are several issues here; the inflexibility
of any
guide in that if it is written down it must be explored and the skill
of the
interviewer to decide which of the prickly issues to further
investigate. It
did not get to the stage where I refused to answer or overtly made a
fuss but
during this reflection I wonder if the interviewer did pick up on this
and
leave it alone? Overall this has been a surprisingly pleasant and
insightful
experience that has found a far greater resonance in me having
reflected upon
the process.
References
Athens, L. (1994) The self as a
soliloquy. The
Sociological Quarterly, 35 (3), 521-532.
Crossley, M. (2000) Introducing
narrative psychology.
Buckingham; OU Press.
Dewey, J. (1933)
How we think. Henrey
Regney; Chicago
Esterberg, K. (2002) Qualitative
methods in social
research. London;
McGraw-Hill.
Gubrium, J and Holstein, J. (1995)
The Active interview. London; Sage.
Johns, C. (1995)
The Value of Reflective Practice for Nursing.J. Clinical Nurs. 4: 23-60
Kemmis, S. (1985)
Action Research and the Politics of Reflection. In: Boude D et al
(1985)
Reflection Turning Experience
into Learning. Kogan Page; London
Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning –
Experience as a source of learning and development. England; Prentice Hall.
Louden, W. (1991)
Understanding Teaching.Cassell\;
London
Mezirow, J.
(1981) A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education. Adult Education 32:
(1) 3-24
McAdams, D. 1993. The
stories we live by: personal
myths and the making of the self. New York; Morrow
Prendergast,
M. (2003)
I, Me, Mine: Soliloquizing as Reflective Practice. International Journal of
Education and the Arts, (4, 1)
Greenaway,
R.
(1990), More Than Activities,
Save the Children Fund.
Reid, B. (1993)
“But we’re doing it already” Exploring a response to the concept of
reflective
practice in order to improve its facilitation. Nurse Ed Today 13: 305-309
Schon, D. (1987).
Educating the Reflective
Practitioner. Josey Bass; San Francisco
Smith, J. (1995) Semi-structured interviewing and
qualitative analysis in Smith, J, Hare, R and Van Langenhove, L. (eds)
Rethinking Methods in Psychology,
pp 9-27.
back to Nick Sherriff
page
|