RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

154 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
people interviewed have insight into the cause
of their behaviour. Insight of this kind may be
rarely achieved and, when it is, it is after long and
difficult effort, usually in the context of repeated
clinical interviews.
In educational circles interviewing might be
aparticularprobleminworkingwithchildren.
Simons (1982) and McCormick and James (1988)
comment on particular problems involved in
interviewing children, for example:
establishing trust
overcoming reticence
maintaining informality
avoiding assuming that children ‘know the
answers’
overcoming the problems of inarticulate
children
pitching the question at the right level
choosing the right vocabulary
being aware of the giving and receiving of
non-verbal cues
moving beyond the institutional response or
receiving what children think the interviewer
wants to hear
avoiding the interviewer being seen as an
authority, spy or plant
keeping to the point
breaking silences on taboo areas and those
which are reinforced by peer-group pressure
seeing children as being of lesser importance
than adults (maybe in the sequence in which
interviews are conducted, e.g. the headteacher,
then the teaching staff, then the children).
These are not new matters. The studies by
Labov in the 1960s showed how students
reacted very strongly to contextual matters in an
interview situation (Labov 1969). The language
of children varied according to the ethnicity
of the interviewee, the friendliness of the
surroundings, the opportunity for the children
to be interviewed with friends, the ease with
which the scene was set for the interview, the
demeanour of the adult (e.g. whether the adult
was standing or sitting) and the nature of the
topics covered. The differences were significant,
varying from monosyllabic responses by children
in unfamiliar and uncongenial surroundings to
extended responses in the more congenial and less
threatening surroundings – more sympathetic to
the children’s everyday world. The language, argot
and jargon (Edwards 1976), social and cultural
factors of the interviewer and interviewee all exert
apowerfulinfluenceontheinterviewsituation.
The issue is also raised here (Lee 1993) of
whether there should be a single interview
that maintains the detachment of the researcher
(perhaps particularly useful in addressing sensitive
topics), or whether there should be repeated
interviews to gain depth and to show fidelity to
the collaborative nature of research (a feature, as
was noted above, which is significant for feminist
research: Oakley 1981).
Kvale (1996: 148–9) suggests that a skilled
interviewer should:
know the subject matter in order to conduct
an informed conversation
structure the interview well, so that each stage
of the interview is clear to the participant
be clear in the terminology and coverage of the
material
allow participants to take their time and answer
in their own way
be sensitive and empathic, using active
listening and being sensitive to how something
is said and the non-verbal communication
involved
be alert to those aspects of the interview which
may hold significance for the participant
keep to the point and the matter in hand,
steering the interview where necessary in order
to address this
check the reliability, validity and consistency
of responses by well-placed questioning
be able to recall and refer to earlier statements
made by the participant
be able to clarify, confirm and modify the
participants’ comments with the participant.
Walford (1994c: 225) adds to this the need for
interviewers to have done their homework when
interviewing powerful people, as such people could
well interrogate the interviewer – they will assume
up-to-dateness, competence and knowledge in the