Counter-talk as symbolic boundary drawing: Challenging legitimate cultural practices in individual and focus group interviews in the lower regions of social space

Abstract

In qualitative interviews, challenges such as deviations from the topic, interruptions, silences or counter-questions are inevitable. It is debatable whether the researcher should try to alleviate them or consider them as important indicators of power relations. In this methodological article, we adopt the latter view and examine the episodes of counter-talk that emerge in qualitative interviews on cultural practices among underprivileged popular classes by drawing on 49 individual and focus group interviews conducted in the highly egalitarian context of Finland. Our main aim is to demonstrate how counter-talk emerging in interview situations could be fruitfully analysed as moral boundary drawing. We identify three types of counter-talk: resisting the situation, resisting the topic, and resisting the interviewer. While the first type unites many of the typical challenges inherent to qualitative interviewing in general (silences, deviations from the topic and so forth), the second one shows that explicit taste distinctions are an important feature of counter-talk, yet the interviewees mostly discuss them as something belonging to the personal sphere. Finally, the third type reveals how the strongest counter-talk and clearest moral boundary stemmed from the interviewees’ attitudes towards the interviewer herself. We argue that counter-talk in general should be given more importance as a key element of the qualitative interview. We demonstrate that all three types of counter-talk are crucial to properly understanding the power relations and moral boundaries present in qualitative interviews and that cultural practices are a particularly good topic to tease them out.

Off track or on point? Side comments in focus groups with teens

“…Rebecca then explained what is meant by transcription and K whispered “I am so sorry” into the recording device. This last example may indicate a kind of resistance to the research project ( Heikkilä and Katainen, 2021 ; Vitus, 2008 ) through being silly, but alternatively could illustrate how participants can be unfamiliar with research processes. It also reminds us that we cannot categorize a single focus group as a homogenous mass, as some participants were bored or distracted while others wanted to pay attention.…”

“…They gave us valuable insight into how our young participants interacted and made meaning together, and allowed us to hear from participants who were less vocal in the main group. Our focus on side comments and conversations in focus groups adds to existing scholarship about focus group participants’ silliness, silences, interruptions ( Nairn et al, 2005 ), resistance and withdrawal ( Jacobsson and Åkerström, 2012 ), identity work ( Allen, 2005 ), and counter- ( Heikkilä and Katainen, 2021 ) and cross-talk ( Raby, 2010 ). Our engagement with data created through side comments and conversations illuminates the diversity and richness of qualitative data.…”

“… Jacobsson and Åkerström (2012) similarly discuss how a participant might have an agenda which counters the intent of an interview, but again, this can be considered a dynamic to learn from rather than an interview failure. Such “counter-talk” strategies may allow participants to “maintain worth and dignity” ( Heikkilä and Katainen, 2021 : 1032), manage anxiety, and to shift (or retrench) class, race, gender, and age-based power relations.…”

The Nexus between Methods and Power in Sociological Research

“…Here, the aforementioned cultural dimension of differences can come into play again. For example, Heikkilä and Katainen (2021) show that, in qualitative interviews, taste distinctions are important indicators of power relations and an important cause of respondents' counter-talk.…”

Socio-Religious Education to Strengthen Harmony Between Hindus and Muslims with Multiculturalism

“…Because by creating social connectivity, it will be able to build community awareness to strengthen social nodes. Harmonization is also a symbolic aspect to emphasize that in the arena of diversity, every connected individual upholds egalitarianism as a way of life (Cashman, 2021;Heikkila & Katainen, 2021). It can be a quantifier to show social indicators regarding how well institutionalized the idea of diversity is while simultaneously creating a social orientation that society will always face differences as a necessity.…”