essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– USING INTERVIEWS –––––––––– 13researcher to consciously set aside his or her presuppositions about the phenomenon underinvestigation – a process sometimes referred to as ‘bracketing’. This, of course, means that theresearcher must reflect on the presuppositions he or she holds, and remain alert to how theymay colour every stage of the research process. Phenomenological interviews are often quitelengthy, and it is common for data collection and analysis activities to substantially overlap –the analysis of one interview informing the way in which the subsequent one is carried out,as the researcher seeks to deepen his or her understanding of the phenomenon. In terms ofepistemology, phenomenological approaches may be seen to occupy the middle ground onthe kind of dimension proposed by Madill et al. (2000). Such approaches recognize that thetext produced in the interview situation is shaped by that context, but would not accept theradical relativist position that it bears no necessary relationship to the interviewee’s widerexperience.SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST INTERVIEWSAs with phenomenology, social constructionism is a broad movement within psychology (andother disciplines) which comprises of several theoretical and methodological strands (Burr,1995). The common ground is a focus on the constructive nature of language; it is arguedthat language does not just describe the external social world and people’s internal mentalstates, it actively constructs them through discourse in interaction. For example, whensomeone says they are ‘feeling sad’, this is viewed not as a description of an emotion insidethe person, but as a discursive act within an interaction, aimed at achieving an objective –eliciting sympathy, disclaiming responsibility and so on.Social constructionist interviews share common features with other types, including theirloose structure, the use of probes to follow up points of interest, and the need for reflexivityon the part of the researcher. The epistemological position of social constructionism does,however, lead to certain characteristic features of interviewing in this tradition. Socialconstructionists see the text of an interview not as a means of gaining insight into the ‘real’experience of the interviewee, but as an interaction constructed in the particular context ofthe interview. They would also hold as a central tenet the claim that every text has anindefinite number of possible interpretations, and no one interpretation can be seen as superiorto others. Wood and Kroger (2000) argue that these assumptions necessitate an active style ofinterviewing, in which the interviewer seeks to present as wide a variety of contexts aspossible, within which the interviewee can display the range of discursive practices availableto him or her (see Dick, Chapter 17, this volume, for further description).DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––This section will describe the main practical issues involved in using qualitative researchinterviews. While much of what I cover is generally applicable, the slant will be rathermore towards phenomenological and realist interviews than discourse analytic ones. I willalso not cover the analysis of interview data, as several chapters in the present volumeprovide accounts of particular analytical techniques. To help bring the issues to life, I willillustrate my discussion with examples from a project with which I have recently beeninvolved.