I found this tool can be the most personal inquiry tool for the research. In this sense, this tool stands totally opposite to the way of survey.
Advantage;
of interviewing people is researcher and interviewee are physically very close. And, this physical distance creates the atmosphere.
I have noticed the atmosphere and body language often provides some thing more than just answers to the questions, some thing more than what interviewee try to explain to me.
This is one the special advantage of interview.
Some times people give me very clear answer and some times answers come with some hesitation or a long pause before they answer.
Some people answer straight away, some people answer very slowly with choosing the right words.
Read between the lines, very famous saying and it is true for survey.
But, I say, try to feel the silence between the conversation. Which I have learned from interviewing people. There are so much information in silence. In other words, possibly the true answers can be only in silence.
Also, interview provides more details compare to rest of inquiry tools, in a very different way, which I will compare and explain at my critical evaluation later.
I started to know them as a person through interviewing. And, gave me a clearer shape of who they are, and what they are trying archive as a person.
That is what this tool is very different to the other inquiry tools.
Detriment;
is it is very time consuming. And, I do not think I need to go through the detail as everyone experienced this.
I also made sure not to digressed from the main subject while interview.
Some times I get unexpected and interesting answers. So, I had to be very careful not to carry out and ask any extra, unnecessary questions.
As Module handbook warns, I need to ask only propriety questions. It was actually a bit difficult as I stated to know the people. But, I realised protect the ethics and keep the questions to minimum and necessary, it is the way to avoid going over the time limit.
Also, I could see some times interviewee hesitate to answer some questions.
It looks like they are thinking of the consequence of their answers, and how they effect them after. That happened when I interviewed dancers and students mainly. However, not from the teachers. It seemed dancers and students were more careful with their answers.
I guess, invisible hierarchy also effect the answers.....
.
Interesting points Daisuke, many of which I have experinced myself too. Having said that, I do feel to a certain extent interviews need not always be so time consuming. With greater experience in practising them, when a researcher knows more about what exactly they need to ask, they can formulate specific questions that get to the point fairly quickly. If we think about journalists for magasines for example, they have to be able to ask questions that provoke the responses they need quickly and effectivly. Obviously, this depends on the nature of the project. My inquiry has required me to be much more flexibile, and let questions emerge from other questions.
ReplyDeleteIt terms of noticing the extent of the discourse flow, what do you interpret the silence to mean? I myself have witnessed it, not exactly sure what it means to be 'hesitant'. Perhaps just that the question had made the respondant pause to think about it longer?
How are you finding analysing your interview data?
Sophie
hi Sophie.
DeleteThanks for your comment.
Interview can be time consuming inquiry tool, however as you commented, it does not have to be that way. With greater experience, we could avoid this problem.
As more experience as practitioner gets, it is possible to get to the points with less time, less words. Journal writing, for example, I am trying to keep my journals short and simple, I am trying to trim a lot after I have written my journals, to really think what is necessary and what is not, how short I can make it, so readers read my journals like seeing a picture or map. That is my aim, but I am not sure I am getting there or not.
I find the interview data quite interesting.
As I read through the results and data, also the atmosphere and participants body languages recalls too, so in that way, I have to make sure that results were honest to what participants wanted to express. However, should I add my observing thoughts? If, I did add my observing thoughts to it, is it still a pure data? or is that going to be a data plus my observing thoughts?
Interview can be a funny tool, it seems like more than one factor of tools in it; as interviewer interviews participants, interviewer observing participants in a same time, with noticing or not.
Thank you for an insightful post. I agree with your thoughts, especially about the benefits of talking to people directly for interviews. Your guess about invisible hierarchies are interesting too. (For dancers, do the employment status affect the honesty of their answers; annual contract, season/production based, freelance etc? Or, is it true that ballet dancers have a obedient character due to training style?)
ReplyDeletehi Mina.
DeleteThanks for your comments.
Current company I belong, last season half of the dancers been sucked. The company have interview with directors at the end of the season with the directors. And I heard the directors have decided to renew the contract or not by the interview.
So, it certainly not a good idea to be extremely honest at interview. As there are always consequence to it.
Invisible hierarchies, tricky.....