Thoughts on why anyone would want to be interviewed, or not…

I asked the interviewee that I used last week if I could re-interview her as part of the Convergent Interviewing process. The reply I got was interesting, basically along the lines of “you interviewed me last week why do it again?”

This got me thinking about the difficulties of interviewing and why people volunteer to be interviewed. The question is, why do people agree to take part in interviews or, what’s in it for them?

A number of points and questions arose from this thought:

  1. Getting interviewee participants is not easy. There has to be a benefit to the interviewee otherwise why would they agree to participate?
  2. What is the incentive for the interviewee participant? I think there is a very narrow and short lived engagement process that occurs in the mind of a potential participant. Possibly the potential participant’s initial thought is based on a feeling that someone is interested in what they have got to say about something – although I’m not sure what this says about randomly selected participants. Why the hell would a randomly selected person want to participate in an data collection exercise? Surely there’s even less motivation for them to participate?
  3. I can see how purposeful selection could lead to greater engagement but again there has to be some kind of incentive for the participant but I’m assuming if someone is told that they have been selected on the basis of their expertise then they might be more forthcoming.
  4. The potential difficulties of getting interview participants and getting people to agree to more than one or two interviews is potentially a difficulty if the researcher is undertaking Convergent Interviewing or just wanting to go back to speak to people again. There are also issues around timing, availability, getting a room and also if you are going back multiple times to people issues around confidentiality might come up because of something as simple as people going off for meetings.
  5. When planning interviews and selecting participants I think depending on the number of people you need to interview it would be good to have more people to interview than absolutely necessary in order to keep numbers up in case some participants decide not to turn up or walk out during an interview.
  6. In some ways small numbers of participants might be easier to manage than large numbers because you can build a closer relationship with potential interviewees and they might be more likely to make a commitment and a contribution.
  7.  I think there is a possibility that the feelings of the interviewer could have an effect on the interviewee. For example today I had a second interview scheduled with my participant from last week but I was feeling tired and did not really want to proceed. I needed to drive up some energy in order to make the interview happen again. As it turned out I did do the interview but it was not as effective as the one I did last week possibly because I was not in the mood but I also detected that the participant was also not in the mood. This could be a significant downside to interviewing – how does the interviewer keep their feelings and physical demeanor neutral so that they do not ‘contaminate’ the interviewee and influence the energy and motivation of the participant?
  8. After completing the two interviews I realized the importance of having sound questions. I found that especially in the second interview I realized that the question I asked was not specific enough but I did not want to ask a leading question either.

A lot of the literature around interviewing is based on getting a valid statistical sample and the methods that can be used to make interviewing more effective but there is not much (in the books I’ve looked at) on why people actually volunteer to be interviewed and why they don’t. I think purposeful selection of participants for interviewing might be the way forward – where this is a choice – because I think choosing people might be more effective than the random sample because of the issues around massaging ego’s on one side and people not wanting to be involved on the other.

I think I have gathered a reasonable amount of data that is interesting in terms of the research questions that I have used but I think if this was my full scale research project I would need to do a lot more work around question design and thinking more specifically what I want out of the interview. Reading the literature prior to the interviews has helped my thinking in terms of the domain of interest and contextualized in terms of what my participant has said and the restructuring process that is currently going on.

 

 

Convergent interview number two

I am planning to carry out my second Convergent Interview on Monday 16th December with the person I interviewed this week. I’m aiming to review and draft the transcript of the interview from this week and then work out a new interview question. I will try to make sure that I am much better prepared for the next interview than the first one!

The first interview

I carried out my first convergent interview on Tuesday morning this week. It was an interesting experience. I decided to use an information and consent form and send these to my interviewee for information. I used the LSBU forms from the ethics site. In the information form I outlined what I would be doing and what the aims of the interview were. I booked a meeting room in the university in order to ensure privacy and confidentiality. There was no telephone or computer just a table and four chairs.

It was fortunate that I had produced and sent the information form. I arrived at the meeting room about 10 minutes prior to the interview. My interviewee arrived said hello and then left to get something. I suddenly realised that due to being tied up with something just prior to leaving to the meeting room I had forgotten my notes and the interview question. A great start. Fortunately I had my iPad with me and was able to access my DropBox account where I had stored my notes and the question.

When my interview subject returned I was ready to go. My participant said that she had read my pre-interview notes and the consent form and was happy to proceed. Although I had included in the consent form a line about being able to withdraw from the interview at any time I wanted to say this but I forgot to.

I did manage to go through my notes and explain what I was intending to do. I had remembered to change the batteries in my digital recorder and I had tested it the day before. I also decided to double check the recorder instructions to make sure I knew how to use the machine.

I read in a text that once the interview has started to not touch or check the recorder as this will avoid drawing the interviewees attention to the device and interrupt the flow of the interview. I did remember this on the day.

The interview was scheduled to last between 30 and 45 minutes because the interviewee had to leave for another meeting at 11:00. After I had explained what was going to happen I spent about 5 minutes chatting about the DBA and how this module was designed to get us to practice interviewing as part of an assignment. We chatted easily for a few minutes. The interview started properly at 10:15 , I started the recorder and asked the question. I was uncertain that asking a single question would result in enough of a response. The interesting thing is that the process of convergent interviewing focuses on individuals who are likely to be able to respond to a question due to their expertise or position or interest in the issue.

After asking the question the interviewee talked non-stop for about 20 minutes without any interruption. It was not necessary for me to prompt at all. I decided not to intervene at points where I thought the interviewee was starting to run out of things to say. These points tended to be where she slowed down her speaking or briefly stopped talking. I think there is a slight fear that stopping talking is a problem in these circumstances and there is a feeling that the interviewer needs to jump in and ask another question or prompt.

Leaving the person to just stop was interesting. The short silences were actually slight moments of thought and reflection and I strongly resisted the urge to ask something. My interviewee would then naturally re-start the answer sometimes in a new direction or just continuing from where she had stopped.

At one point I did ask a follow-up question mainly for clarification and this seemed effective. It was really just a small prompting question. I did this several times in the end in order to keep the answer on track. I felt that this was within the spirit of convergent interviewing because I had not planned any but the first main question the rest became just prompts.

After 37 minutes the time was 10:55 and I decided that the interview had reached a natural stop point. I was aware that my participant needed to be away by 11:00 so I stopped the process and thanked my interviewee for her time. I said that I would be reviewing the data over the weekend and would likely come back next week with another question stemming from this first one and the result of the interview. My participant said this would be OK.

I asked her how she felt doing an interview that had one primary question and she said she had actually enjoyed the experience and felt that the experience had been like a counselling session and she had managed to talk through a lot of issues that had been of concern to her. I said I felt that she could have gone on for another hour and she agreed also mentioned that she did not really need the prompting as it was easy to talk through the issue as there was so much to discuss.

I felt that after the initial uncertain start the interview continued and was carried out well. The single question and occasional prompt asked to a person who was deeply interested in the subject was effective and produced a significant amount of useful data. I will be transcribing the data over the weekend and will see if there is another question that can be used next week. My aim now is to have one more interview with the same participant to see if convergent and divergent data emerges.

Consultation begins turbulence increases

The university has begun a consultation process to gather the views of staff with respect of the change proposal that has been drawn up by the new VC. A series of staff forums where staff can raise issues, concerns and suggestions have begun. These are being chaired by senior managers some of whom have been given notice that their jobs are at risk of redundancy. The response of staff to the proposals at these meetings has varied between resignation and an acceptance that the Schools structure is a done deal and anger at the way that the process has been implemented. The anger at the implementation seems to fit very well with views on Organisational Justice specifically the aspect Procedural Justice and Informational Justice.

I have noticed that in the last few days formal meetings seem to always start with a discussion about the restructuring. There does not seem to be any part of the organization that has been left untouched by an element of uncertainty. I have found that asking people simple questions about the restructuring elicits long answers with strong views on the situation. This leads me to an assurance that using Convergent Interviewing is a sound method of gathering data.

An interesting point to note is in the literature on interview techniques much is made of the interview process whereby the interviewer should make an introductory statement at the beginning of the interview e.g.

  • Identify the auspices under which the research is being conducted.
  • Purposes of the research, funded or for a thesis.
  •  Indication of what the research is about.
  • Indicate why the subject has been chosen.
  • Make it clear participation is voluntary.
  • Assure the respondent that their identity will not be revealed and all information will be confidential.
  • Provide opportunity for respondent to ask questions or raise concerns.
  • Ask some simple opening questions and lead to the main substance of the interview.

(Bryman, 2012)

The interesting point is that when interviewing strangers the lead in to the main interview is probably essential in order to gain the confidence of the interviewee and to put them at ease. I have found that asking people I know and work with at work a question the usual response is for the colleague to open up with their views expansively and almost immediately. My view is that there is a strong possibility that I am going to be able to gather a lot of interview data for the assignment and the thesis project with little problem.

I have attached notes that I took at a consultation meeting that took place on Wed, Dec 04, 2013.

Consultation Meeting Notes Wed Dec 04 2013

Invitation to part time staff to consultation meetings received Thu, Dec 05, 2013.

Part time staff invitation to consultation meetings December 2014

Restructuring FAQ #1 posted Dec 05, 2013.

Restructuring FAQ 05122013

Bryman, A, (2012), Social research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.