RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

CONCLUSION 131
female; powerful people may feel insulted by
being interviewed by a lowly, novice research
assistant. Interviewer effects also concern the
expectations that the interviewers may have
of the interview (Lee 1993: 99). For example,
a researcher may feel apprehensive about, or
uncomfortable with, an interview about a sensitive
matter. Bradburn and Sudman (1979, in Lee
1993: 101) report that interviewers who did not
anticipate difficulties in the interview achieved a
5–30percenthigherlevelofreportingonsensitive
topics than those who anticipated difficulties. This
suggests the need for interviewer training.
Lee (1993: 102–14) suggests several issues to be
addressed in conducting sensitive interviews:
How to approach the topic (in order to
prevent participants’ inhibitions and to help
them address the issue in their preferred way).
Here the advice is to let the topic ‘emerge
gradually over the course of the interview’ (Lee
1993: 103) and to establish trust and informed
consent.
How to deal with contradictions, complexities
and emotions (which may require training and
supervision of interviewers); how to adopt an
accepting and non-judgemental stance, how to
handle respondents who may not be people
whom interviewers particularly like or with
whom they agree).
How to handle the operation of power and
control in the interview: (a) where differences
of power and status operate, where the
interviewer has greater or lesser status than
the respondent and where there is equal status
between the interviewer and the respondent;
(b) how to handle the situation where the
interviewer wants information but is in no
position to command that this be given
and where the respondent may or may
not wish to disclose information; (c) how
to handle the situation wherein powerful
people use the interview as an opportunity for
lengthy and perhaps irrelevant self-indulgence;
(d) how to handle the situation in which the
interviewer, by the end of the session, has
information that is sensitive and could give
the interviewer power over the respondent and
make the respondent feel vulnerable; (e) what
the interviewer should do with information
that may act against the interests of the
people who gave it (e.g. if some groups in
society say that they are not clever enough
to handle higher or further education); and
(f) how to handle the conduct of the interview
(e.g. conversational, formal, highly structured,
highly directed).
Handling the conditions under which the
exchange takes place Lee (1993: 112) suggests
that interviews on sensitive matters should
‘have a one-off character’, i.e. the respondent
should feel that the interviewer and the
interviewee may never meet again. This can
secure trust, and can lead to greater disclosure
than in a situation where a closer relationship
between interviewer and interviewee exists.
On the other hand, this does not support
the development of a collaborative research
relationship (Lee 1993: 113).
Much educational research is more or less
sensitive; it is for the researcher to decide how
to approach the issue of sensitivities and how
to address their many forms, allegiances, ethics,
access, politics and consequences.
Conclusion
In approaching educational research, our advice
is to consider it to be far from a neat, clean,
tidy, unproblematic and neutral process, but
to regard it as shot through with actual and
potential sensitivities. With this in mind we
have resisted the temptation to provide a list
of sensitive topics, as this could be simplistic
and overlook the fundamental issue which is
that it is the social context of the research that
makes the research sensitive. What may appear
to the researcher to be a bland and neutral study
can raise deep sensitivities in the minds of the
participants. We have argued that it is these that
often render the research sensitive rather than
the selection of topics of focus. Researchers have
to consider the likely or possible effects of the
Chapter 5