RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

INTERVIEWING CHILDREN 375
taking place in as close to a natural surrounding
as possible; indeed Eder and Fingerson (2003: 45)
report the successful use of a high-status child as
the interviewer with a group of children.
Group interviewing with children enables them
to challenge each other and participate in a
way that may not happen in a one-to-one,
adult–child interview and using language that
the children themselves use. For example, Lewis
(1992) found that 10 year olds’ understanding of
severe learning difficulties was enhanced in group
interview situations, the children challenging and
extending each other’s ideas and introducing new
ideas into the discussion. Further, having the
interview as part of a more routine, everyday
activity can also help to make it less unnatural,
as can making the interview more like a game
(e.g. by using props such as toys and pictures).
For example, it could be part of a ‘show and
tell’ or ‘circle time’ session, or part of group
discussion time. The issue here is to try to make
the interview as informal as possible. Of course,
sometimes it may be more useful to formalize the
session, so that children have a sense of how
important the situation is, and they can respond
to this positively. It can be respectful to have an
informal or, indeed, a formal interview; the former
maybe for younger children and the latter for older
children.
While group interviews may be useful with
many children, it is also the case that individual
interviews with children may also be valuable.
For example, Eder and Fingerson (2003: 43–4)
report the value of individual interviews with
adolescents, particularly about sensitive matters,
for example relationships, family, body issues,
sexuality, love. Indeed they report examples where
individual interview yielded different results from
group interviews with the same people about
the same topics, and where the individuals
valued greatly the opportunity for a one-to-one
conversation.
Interviews with children should try to employ
open-ended questions, to avoid a single answer
type of response. Another strategy is to use a
projection technique. Here, instead of asking
direct questions, the interviewer can show a
picture or set of pictures, and then ask the children
for their responses. For example, a child may first
comment on the people’s race in the pictures,
followed by their sex, suggesting that race may
be more important in their mind than their sex.
This avoids a direct question and may reduce
the possibility of a biased answer – where the
respondent may be looking for cues as to how to
respond. Other projection techniques include the
use of dolls or puppets, photographs of a particular
scene which the respondents have to comment
upon (e.g. what is happening What should be
done here), and the ‘guess who’ technique (Wragg
2002: 157) (which people might fit a particular
description).
Simons (1982), Lewis (1992), Bailey (1994:
447–9) and Breakwell (2000: 245–6), however,
chart some difficulties in interviewing children,
for example how to
overcome children being easily distracted (e.g.
some interviewers provide toys or pictures, and
these distract the children)
avoid the researcher being seen as an authority
figure (e.g. a teacher, a parent or an adult in a
powerful position)
understand what children mean and what they
say (particularly with very young children)
gather a lot of information in a short time,
children’s attention span being limited
have children reveal what they really think and
feel rather than what they think the researcher
wants to hear
avoid the situation being seen by the child as
atest
keep the interview relevant
overcome young children’s unwillingness to
contradict an adult or assert themselves
interview inarticulate, hesitant and nervous
children
get the children’s teacher away from the
children
respond to the child who says something then
immediately wishes she hadn’t said it
elicit genuine responses from children rather
than simply responses to the interview
situation
Chapter 16