Interviewees with an agenda: learning from a ‘failed’ interview

Abstract

Social constructionists consider interviews as mutually co-constructing meaning. But what if the interlocutors do not seem to agree on what they construct? What if the interviewee has a particularly strong agenda, far from the intended research topic? Are these 'failed' interviews? We address this issue using a 'deviant' interview in a study of 'being a neighbour'. First, we add to the discussion of interviewees' category representativeness by acknowledging a situation when the interviewee insists on representing a category not intended by the researcher. Second, we address the notion of asymmetries of power, where it is often assumed that the interviewer has the upper hand. Through this case, we argue that the opposite may well be true. Finally, we argue that cases where the interviewee pursues a strong agenda may suggest new research areas. After all, strong efforts of resistance may indicate deeper cultural concerns.

Customizing Methodological Approaches in Qualitative Research on Vulnerable Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…He had taken my introduction letter quite literally, mentioning that "I would like to hear about your interests and leisure activities" among other quotes. This example illustrates a potential pitfall in preparing the child for the interview: the risk that it could be a "failed interview" [43] (p. 717) in the sense of not providing knowledge "on the research agenda" or only providing limited knowledge. If the preparation, including the introduction letter, is too unfocused, inviting the child to talk about whatever he or she wants to, the researchers' risk receiving unfocused information from the children rather than specific insights into their perspectives on their well-being and school inclusion as intended.…”

The micro-politics of emotions in legal space: an autoethnography about sexual violence and displacement in Norway

“…In contrast to the conventional position, some scholars suggest that moments during fieldwork that are characterized by conflict, displacement and uneasiness should be subject to analysis (Hage 2010;Jacobsson and Åkerström 2013;Kvale 2006;Vitus 2008). Rather than dismissing or hiding painful emotions in order to seek consensus and smooth interaction with field participants, as the conventional approach suggests, feminist and interactionist scholars regard the field as an arena for struggle over definition power.…”

“…The qualitative methodology literature has produced several accounts of how ethnographers can transform 'failed fieldwork', or tension between themselves and the participants, into a deep understanding of the field and its participants (Kvale 2006;Jacobsson and Åkerström 2013;Presser 2005;Ugelvik 2014;Vitus 2008;). When researchers make mistakes, emotional reflexivity can be turned into a rich source of data about social practices, cultural understandings, discursive resources, institutional logics, and political structures and agendas in the field (Vitus 2008, 468).…”

Exploring culture through in-depth interviews: is it useful to ask people about what they think, mean, and do?

“…As DiMaggio states, "research on automatic versus deliberative processing may help sociologists to determine what to do with the widely believed but theoretically inert notion that both institution and agency are central to social life" (1997:272). Similarly, Nairn and colleagues (2005) and Jacobsson and Åkerström (2013) understand that interviews are not a failure when they are not reliable from a realistic or positivist perspective. There are other dimensions that matter when we seek to understand human behavior and culture specifically.…”