Questioning the Subject in Biographical Interviewing

Abstract

This paper considers how different approaches to interviewing and styles of questioning produce different sorts of biographical subjects and accounts. It compares styles of biographical interview (chronological and narrative) and types of question (narrative and explanatory), and presents an approach, which treats the interview as a collaborative co-production primarily concerned with the present and subjectivity, rather than the past and fact. It also considers how biographical interviewing may direct and contain narratives of the self through the subject positions it creates and offers interviewees. Discussion is grounded in reflection on a recent project involving university students in interviewing young people leaving care about their care experiences and making a training video for professionals. The paper highlights the inter-subjective and emotional aspects of interviewing in this context.

Researching Family Relationships: A Qualitative Mixed Methods Approach

“…There are a range of associated interview techniques which in turn produce different sorts of biographical subjects and accounts (Harding, 2006). In the Behind Closed Doors project I used a biographical narrative (BN) psychosocial approach, drawing on interview methods that generate lifecourse data and which have proven to be effective in the study of parenthood, families and relationships (Hollway, 2005;Roseneil, 2006;Thomson, Kehily, Hadfield, & Sharpe, 2008).…”

Public Sociology: Working at the Interstices

“…They are always collaborative and co-produced and variously influenced by circumstances and feelings of the moment, that is, 'concerned with the present and subjectivity as much as fact and the past' (Harding 2006). For example, we heard through informal feedback that professional audiences viewing the film Care Stories were surprised at the frankness and openness of interviewees' narratives, which they felt would never be have been related to professionals.…”

“…Empowerment through interview has to be understood, not as a single act leading to a reversal of fortune, but as always partial and 'part of an ongoing process of self reflexivity, production and transformation within the research encounter and hegemonic relations which constitute it' (Harding 2006).…”

“How Can You Write About a Person Who Does Not Exist?”: Rethinking Pseudonymity and Informed Consent in Life History Research

“…Life history researchers have access to unusually high levels of intimate data about each participant. The life history approach was chosen because of the humanising impact of considering life from the interviewee's perspective (Rustin and Chamberlayne 2002) and potential this has to challenge dominant historic accounts (Harding 2006). Life history participants are encouraged to consider how wider societal factors, such as conflict/post-conflict, impact their lives and activism, a phenomenon described by Miller (2000, p. 22) as "micro/macro interplay".…”