RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

362 INTERVIEWS
For example, there is the need to address
the cognitive aspect of the interview, ensuring
that the interviewer is sufficiently knowledgeable
about the subject matter that she or he can conduct
the interview in an informed manner, and that
the interviewee does not feel threatened by lack
of knowledge. That this is a particular problem
when interviewing children has been documented
by Simons (1982) and Lewis (1992), who indicate
that children will tend to say anything rather
than nothing at all, thereby limiting the possible
reliability of the data. The interviewer must also
be vigilant to the fact that respondents may not
always be what they seem; they may be providing
misinformation, telling lies, evading the issue,
putting on a front (Walford 2001: 91), settling
scores, and being malicious.
Further, the ethical dimension of the interview
needs to be borne in mind, ensuring, for
example, informed consent, guarantees of confidentiality,
beneficence and non-maleficence (i.e.
that the interview may be to the advantage of the
respondent and will not harm him or her). The
issues of ethics also needs to take account of what
is to count as data, for example, it is often after
the cassette recorder or video camera has been
switched off that the ‘gems’ of the interview are
revealed, or people may wish to say something ‘off
the record’; the status of this kind of information
needs to be clarified before the interview commences.
The ethical aspects of interviewing are
discussed later in the chapter.
Then there is a need to address the interpersonal,
interactional, communicative and emotional aspects
of the interview. For example, the interviewer and
interviewee communicate non-verbally, by facial
and bodily expression. Something as slight as a
shift in position in a chair might convey whether
the researcher is interested, angry, bored, agreeing,
disagreeing and so on. Here the interviewer has to
be adept at ‘active listening’.
Further, the onus is on the interviewer to
establish and maintain a good rapport with the
interviewee. This concerns being clear, polite,
non-threatening, friendly and personable, to the
point, but without being too assertive. It also
involves being respectful, e.g. some respondents
may or may not wish to be called by their first name,
family name or title; being dressed too casually
may not inspire confidence. Rapport also requires
the interviewer to communicate very clearly and
positively the purpose, likely duration, nature and
conduct and contents of the interview, to give the
respondent the opportunity to ask questions, to be
sensitive to any emotions in the respondent, to
avoid giving any signs of annoyance, criticism or
impatience, and to leave the respondent feeling
better than, or at least no worse than, she or he
felt at the start of the interview. This requires
the interviewer to put himself/herself in the shoes
of the respondent, and to be sensitive to how
it must feel to be interviewed. Rapport does not
mean ‘liking’ the respondent (Dyer 1995: 62);
it means handling the situation sensitively and
professionally.
The interviewer is also responsible for
considering the dynamics of the situation, for
example, how to keep the conversation going, how
to motivate participants to discuss their thoughts,
feelings and experiences, how to overcome the
problems of the likely asymmetries of power in
the interview (where the interviewer typically
defines the situation, the topic, the conduct,
the introduction, the course of the interview,
and the closing of the interview) (Kvale 1996:
126). As Kvale suggests, the interview is not
usually a reciprocal interaction between two equal
participants. That said, it is important to keep the
interview moving forward, and how to achieve
this needs to be anticipated by the interviewer,
for example by being clear on what one wishes to
find out, asking those questions that will elicit the
kinds of data sought, giving appropriate verbal and
non-verbal feedback to the respondent during the
interview. It extends even to considering when
the interviewer should keep silent (Kvale 1996:
135).
The ‘directiveness’ of the interviewer has been
scaled by Whyte (1982), where a 6-point scale of
directiveness and responding was devised (1 = the
least directive, and 6 = the most directive):
1 Makingencouragingnoises.
2 Reflectingonremarksmadebytheinformant.