RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

364 INTERVIEWS
minimizing the risk of ‘stage fright’ in
interviewees and interviewers
avoiding asking embarrassing or awkward
questions
jumping from one topic to another
giving advice or opinions (rather than active
listening)
summarizing too early or closing off an
interview too soon
being too superficial
handling sensitive matters (e.g. legal matters,
personal matters, emotional matters).
Arksey and Knight (1999: 53) suggest that the
interviewer should
appear to be interested
keep to the interview schedule in a structured
interview
avoid giving signs of approval or disapproval of
responses received
be prepared to repeat questions at the
respondent’s request
be prepared to move on to another question
without irritation, if the respondent indicates
unwillingness or inability to answer the
question
ensure that he/she (i.e. the interviewer)
understands a response, checking if necessary
(e.g. ‘Am I right in thinking that you
mean ...’)
if a response is inadequate, but the interviewer
feels that the respondent may have more to
say, thank the respondent and add ‘and could
you please tell me ....’
give the respondent time to answer (i.e. avoid
answering the question for the respondent).
There is also the issue of how to record
the interview as it proceeds. For example, an
audiotape recorder might be unobtrusive but
might constrain the respondent; a videotape
might yield more accurate data but might be
even more constraining, with its connotation of
surveillance. Merton et al.(1956)commentonthe
tendency of taping to ‘cool things down’. It might
be less threatening not to have any mechanical
means of recording the interview, in which case
the reliability of the data might rely on the
memory of the interviewer. An alternative might
be to have the interviewer make notes during the
interview, but this could be highly off-putting for
some respondents. The issue here is that there is a
trade-off between the need to catch as much data
as possible and yet to avoid having so threatening
an environment that it impedes the potential of
the interview situation.
What is being suggested here is that the
interview, as a social encounter, has to take
account of, and plan for, the whole range of other
possibly non-cognitive factors that form part of
everyday conduct. The ‘ideal’ interview, then,
meets several ‘quality criteria’ (Kvale 1996: 145):
The extent of spontaneous, rich, specific, and
relevant answers from the interviewee.
The shorter the interviewer’s questions and the
longer the subject’s answers, the better.
The degree to which the interviewer follows
up and clarifies the meanings of the relevant
aspects of the answers.
The ideal interview is to a large extent
interpreted throughout the interview.
The interviewer attempts to verify his or her
interpretations of the subject’s answers in the
course of the interview.
The interview is ‘self-communicating’ – it is a
story contained in itself that hardly requires
much extra description and explanation.
People may refuse to be interviewed (Bailey
1994: 186–7; Cooper and Schindler 2001: 301),
e.g. they may
not give a reason for refusing
be hostile to what they see as intrusion
hold anti-authoritarian feelings
feel that surveys are a waste of time
speak a foreign language
take an instant dislike to the interviewer
say that they are too busy
feel embarrassed or ignorant
dislike the topic under review
be afraid of the consequences of participating
may feel inadequate or that they do not know
the right answer.