INF5220 - 5

1. INF5220 - 5 Lecture 2nd of January 2006 HAPPY NEW YEAR!

2. Last week’s assignments • Observation • Interview • What did you learn?

3. Observation • Values of direct observational approaches: • Understanding context • Inductive approach: less need to rely on prior conceptualizations of the setting • See things that are routinely ”taken for granted” • See things participants may be unwilling to talk about in interviews

4. Observation • Observing what happens: • Activities: planned, unplanned • People: characteristics, grouping • What people say: quotations • How they interact: patterns, frequency, direction of communication, changes; formal and informal • Nature of physical setting (photographs?) • Observing what does not happen: • No conflicts?

5. Observation • More than casual looking around • Don’t think you are a ”natural” observer • Requires preparation • Training: • How to write descriptively • Practicing recording field notes • Separations details/trivia • What is unimportant? • Not separation details/context!

6. Interviews • Using interviews in your research? Here are two questions that you need to think about: • What status do you allocate to the data? I.e. what do you think about the relation between the interviewee’s accounts and the world(s) they describe? • What do you think about the relation between the interviewee and the interviewer? (respondent, informant, interviewee, subject, etc.)

7. What status do you assign to your interview data? • Are they facts (e.g. about attitudes and behaviour)? • That is, if you have designed and conducted the interview properly, and avoided problems such as bias. • Do the interview give you accounts of authentic experiences? • That is, if you have managed to engage emotionally and achieved understanding and ’depth’. • Are the interviews ’jointly constructed encounters of focused interaction’? • Do you have your focus on how participants actively create meaning and perform during the interview?

8. Corresponds to: • The three categories (Silverman) and their focus: • Positivism: Quality (reliability) more or less equal to ’non-bias’. Much use of prescheduled and standardised interviews • Emotionalism: Interviews of high quality have managed to acquire ’depth’. Use of open-ended interviews • Constructionism: Quality linked to reflexivity. Open-ended interviews to be reported with adequate detail. • Not one correct category, choice depends on your purpose. • Your practical concerns should guide your analytic position • Ask yourself whether interviews really help you address your research topic

9. What status do the data have? • Geertz, 1973; p.9: ”What we call our data are really our own constructions of other people’s constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to”. • Van Maanen, 1979: • Interviewee’s constructions: first-order data • Researcher’s constructions: second-order concepts, which rely on good theory and insightful analysis

10. On interviewing and questioning • Types of interviews: • Structured: more or less fixed sequence of pre-formulated questions. (Iterations (tests and feedback) during design of interview guide) • Semi-structured: you want to cover some areas, but the sequence is not important. Adjust the wording of the questions and ask follow-up questions as you go along • Open (non-structured): Maybe a pre-formulated starting question, but thereafter the interviewee steers. • Ways to question: • Closed versus open questions: • ”Would you say this project has been a success or a failure?” • ”How would you evaluate the project?” • Clear and short questions, one at a time • Sequence: from the general to the specific • How and What-questions versus Why-questions • Ask questions on experience and behaviour before questions on feelings and opinions

11. Probes • Eliciting response without manipulating: probing. Probes can be used in order to get more details, or to get the interviewee to elaborate more and clarify the statements • The basic probe: repeat the initial question when the interviewee seems to be wandering off the point. • Explanatory probes to illuminate vague or incomplete statements: • ”What did you mean by that?” • ”What makes you say that?” • ”Could you tell me more about this?” • Focused probes to obtain specific information: • What sort of…? • Then what happened? • What seemed to lead up to that? • Was this before or after..? • What else happened? • How would you compare this to..? • Silent probe: when the interviewee is reluctant or slow to answer, just wait silently. • An example of a leading probe: ”So you would say that you were really satisfied?”

12. Probes • The technique of drawing out when the interviewee has halted or dried up: • ”Tell me more about that..” • ”What happened then?” • Mirorring or reflecting, expressing in your own words what is said, the interviewee may then correct or add on. • ”What you seem to be saying is that …” • Contradicting: give an opposite opinion • ”Is that really so – I heard somebody say..” • Linking: connect the statement with a question on relevant information • Display puzzlement to have the interviewee elaborate. • ”Why is that a problem?” • ”I am not sure I understand, could you explain why..” • Challenging: demand more information to prove a claim • ”Really? • Encouraging: give compliments • Giving ideas or suggestions: • ”Have you thought about …?” • ”Have you tried..?” • Showing understanding and allowing time for elaboration • Acknowledging: Nod, say ”yes” or ”uh-hmm” or repeat the answer to show attention.

13. Example of using probes: • R: ”Why did you decide to further your studies in the UK?” • I: ”The school I attended in Hong Kong was not very good. Also it is rather difficult to enter a good secondary school there” • R: ”Which school did you go to when you were in Hong Kong?” • I: ”T S Government Primary School” • R: ”Isn’t it a good school?” • I: ”No. The English standard is low. Chinese is the best subject there.” • R: ”How was English taught there?” • I: ”It was very different form here (UK). Here I am asked to write essays. In TS Government Primary School, students were asked to buy their own course books and the teachers taught us chapter by chapter.” • R: ”Is there anything wrong with that?” • I: ”Teaching was slow and our teachers taught things repeatedly”. (Contradicting) (Linking) (Fake being puzzled) (Rita S. Y. Berry: ”Collecting data by in-depth interviewing”. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association annual conference, September 1999)

14. Example of interviewing technique: The ’Reverse Laddering Technique’ (from cognitive psychology, and consumer/marketing research) helps to ’dig deeper’ into people’s reasoning, to reveal their ’causal maps’. One asks ”Why (how, in what way) is that important to you?” Concepts:Example: • concrete attributes (low fat) • abstract attributes (fewer calories) • functional consequences (slimming) • psychosocial consequences (social acceptance) • instrumental values (self-confidence) • terminal values (self-esteem)

15. On interviewing and questioning • Recording and transcribing: • Recording devices (tape recorder, mobile, laptop): try it out before you use it (sound quality, distance, background noise). Do also take notes in case something fails. • Interference in the interview situation: subject may get wary, but most tend to forget about the recording device rather soon. • Transcription takes a lot of time! (1 hour interview makes for 6-8 hours writing) Don’t be too ambitious when planning your research. • Transcriptions are useful (to share with collaborators/supervisors, allows you to go back to material later with other aims, ideas). • Your own body language and engagement • Convey attention and genuine interest through tone of voice, expressions, gestures. Balance note-taking with attention. • Dress and manners. Choice of location for interview • How do you present yourself, as ’student’ or ’researcher’? Are you asking for an ’interview’ or a ’discussion’? • Convey understanding and respect, and that you record the responses rather than judge them • Allow them finish what they are saying, let them proceed in their own rate of thinking and speaking.