Reflections+on+In+Depth+Interview

=From Sandy Schaeffer: In Depth Interview Reflections=

toc

//Review In-depth interview video clip on simulated case study and write a wiki reflection on how knowledge was created and the types of questions that prompted such production of knowledge. Can you categorize those questions?

Somehow my poor mind went blank since Wednesday of last week and, therefore, I required a reminder from Kakali today (Wednesday) to remember to do this assignment. So, perhaps I'm still stuck in my pre-digital learning days of the 1970s where all learning was hard-copy based and spoon-fed directly from the instructor. (Although somehow I remembered to get the readings downloaded and done in plenty of time.) In any event, I decided to approach this exercise as a reflection on the interview techniques and benefits of this particular approach as a learning experience. Here goes - and I hope this is a valid way of addressing the assignment's requirements.//

That's all I can think of to say at this time.
 * One of the first things I noticed in the interview process was the degree of personal comfort of both the interviewer and the case study informant (Alex). I noticed both had bare feet and the furniture and postures were obviously condusive to a very relaxed conversation. Kakali was very relaxed in a straight-back chair and propped her feet up on a shared stool and rocked back a bit throughout the interview. It was clear to me that physical comfort was experienced by both participants. I can only speculate that it added to the value and honesty of the information shared by Alex and the depth of their conversation.
 * Another thing I found interesting was the 90-degree angle between the two as opposed to face-to-face. Not sure if that was a conscious thing or accidental, but I do believe that some data was missed (on Alex in particular) because of the distance of the camera from his face. Perhaps using this kind of data collection (full audio-video) facial expressions, body language, and voice inflextions are valid data to be considered? I'm not sure...
 * I also noticed that the pencil and paper in Kakali's lap was rarely used. They seemed mostly as ways to keep her hands still. This strikes me as an indication of an experienced interviewer.
 * I believe that the depth of knowledge generated in this interview was deepened because the nature of the exercise and interview style gave Alex (the informant?) an oppotunity to reflect in a way that appeared to be very natural for him. He appears to be an expressive and open individual and the exercise and approach seemed to naturally align with his personality. I'd have to believe that the data gathered in a study like this has greater depth and value because of this alignment. So if this is an accepted approach in qualitative research I'd have to ask if this is really practical or scientifically rigorous on a consistent (or scaled) basis?
 * In watching this clip, I noticed that Kakali was very transparent with Alex about the nature of the study and what the next steps will be. In my limited experience doing qualitative interviews (total of 5 in a year) I've developed a similar approach. But I did this without prompting or without validating it as an appropriate way to conduct qualitative interviews. It's a natural way in which I dialog with faculty (my study group population) and it seems respectful of their capacity (or interest) in understanding the nature of their study they're participating in. Now, my nagging concern is that by exposing them to so much of the nature of the study, I'm somehow influencing their subjectivities with respect to the questions I am asking them to talk about. In other words, how "blind" should we keep the informants while collecting interview data.
 * One last thing on the benefit of a video-clip such as this as a learning tool...I think an intro to the movie clip, but ON the movie clip would have enriched my experience in viewing it. I know there was a text narrative on the page where the clip link was located, but my mind seemed to want to see and hear Kakali talk about the interview just before the interview started. A minor thing, but it would have helped better establish my mental state in viewing the interview. Perhaps this is why full-length movies always start with some sort of intro screens - it shifts the human mind to take in visual & auditory data more naturally? Or perhaps this is just me...

Sandy Schaeffer

1. Could you tell me about a time when you were really inspired to write? (D)** critical events inspire you to write, what else? - //this follow up question asks Alex to add to the knowledge already gained by telling about another type of inspiration...KB doesn't assume that the "critical events" are his only inspiration but asks him to talk more about it.// writer's voice, what that is like? - //this is not something about which KB asked, but it is interesting and a new thought so she explores it. He didn't really answer the question but the result was a new piece of the puzzle revealed.// what literary devices? (S) - //how did she know to ask about this? Would this be part of preparation?// list devices (C) how to stay true to your voice? - (D) //KB and Alex are both interested in this so she pursues it more...seems like there is something important about staying true, being yourself, acting normal, just being you, etc.// What do you like about Hunter Thompson's voice? (C) - //good thing for rapport; I thought he might be offended.// again, how to stay true? What is it like to find your voice? (D) Walk me through the last time you wrote a poem?- KB explores each genre and asks how he does that writing (D) Think of a time when writing a novel chapter? (S) What about when it doesn't go well? -//this is introduced without being on the agenda; wonder where that thought comes from? Does it come from something he said? I don't think so.// What happens when you have blocks? (D) First person? -//he reveals earlier that he usually writes in the first person and she explores it here.// Last time writing block? (S)
 * From Karen: Here ar ethe proposed questions in bold, follow questions, not bolded, reflections italicized. Quaestions categoriezed as Descripttive (D), Structural (S), or Contrast (C).
 * 2. Could you describe some writing strategies you use when you write? (S)**
 * 3. When you think about the process of your creative writing, how do you see writing song lyrics, poems, music, novel, comparing with each other? (C)**

=Gary's comments (second attempt):=

It appeared that the skeleton for this interview was built on the descriptive questions KB used to guide the interview -- e.g. "Talk to me about what it was like ..."; Talk to me about the process when ..."; Walk me through ...". These descriptive questions were interspersed with several structural questions that KB used to help Alex expand on some of his intitial response to the descriptive questions -- e.g. "When you said things, what made you say something"; "Can you give me an example ..."; "How did that go". I think I only heard a couple of contrast questions -- "Was that kind of the same ..."; What kinds of things are you doing as compared to then ..."

It seemed that the type of knowledge being generated was that of mutual discovery -- KB learning about what it is like for Alex to be a writer even as she helped him look at that role in ways he, perhaps, had not considered previously -- at least not in the same way as when he was aksed to respond to these questions. There was a gentle prodding here to go deeper.

The interview portrayed well the give-and-take of KB having to both guide and follow in the process of doing an interview. It seemed that she had some particular questions she wanted to introduce in guiding the interview, but she also followed Alex' lead by picking up on words he used to ask follow-up questions. I suspect this type of "following" helped assure Alex of KB's interest in what he was saying even when he had trouble answering the follow-up question and, thus, encouraged him to try to go deeper in answering her questions. This process of guiding and following demonstrated the fact that good interviewing is both an art and a science.

=From Anita Wells=

Review In-depth interview video clip on simulated case study and write a wiki reflection on how knowledge was created and the types of questions that prompted such production of knowledge. Can you categorize those questions?
 * Reflections: In-Depth Interview**
 * September 13, 2006**
 * **Tell me about a time you were inspired to write and what it was like for you to write**. This is a descriptive question that encourages the participant to elicit information. The interviewer’s job is to keep the communication flowing by asking questions that elicit deeper and richer meaning. KB did this with the following questions.
 * **Sounds like a critical event inspires you, can you think of other things that inspire you to write?** This is descriptive question followed by a structural question. KB restates what the participant said. He agreed that he was describing a critical event. Therefore, KB had the cooperation of the participant and they were in accord with what had been described. This opened the door for KB to continue with the structural question about other things that inspire him to write.
 * **Could you describe some writing strategies?** This is a descriptive question followed by a structural question. The participant then asked ‘What do you mean by strategies?’
 * **What do you think would make it good?** This question was KB’s response to the participants ‘test question response.’ He was not sure the direction she wanted him to take about strategies. KB at this point would not want to provide information. Rather, she wants the participant to determine the direction of answering the question. KB may have provided some information (I couldn’t quite grasp what she said). I thought she may have said ‘What do you think makes it good?’
 * **You mentioned voice…can you describe developing your voice?** This is a descriptive question that provides an open door for the participant to provide more information.
 * **You use literacy devices in your writing** (This is a restatement or deeper exploration of what the participant said. Restatements are good for rapport building (Spradley, 1979) and this restatement was a good way for KB to demonstrate that she grasped some important language the participant used to describe his writing).
 * **You mentioned literacy devices and .....can you think of others, can you list some of these devices?** This is a structural question. KB repeated the terms already mentioned. The participant is clear on what KB is referring to as she used these repeated terms to jog the participant’s memory (Spradley, 1979). KB is also learning more personal terms that the participant uses when talking about writing.
 * **What kind of things do you do to stay true to your voice?** This is a structural question. KB did not ask the participant to list ALL the things that help him stay true to his voice. He was free to name a few. She could use this answer to draw out more information as she did in the following questions.
 * **What is it about Hunter Thompson that you like?** I think this is a descriptive example question. Even though KB did not use the word ‘example’ she was asking for examples of things about Hunter Thompson that the participant liked.
 * **Do you do anything specific to stay true to your voice besides not sounding like Hunter Thompson?** This is an included term structural question. KB included the term used by the participant and asked for other ways to stay true to his voice. This can be awkward (Spradley, 1979) because KB only had one term to refer to instead of a list. Spradley suggests holding back on this question until more terms are collected to feed back to the participant. However, the participant did not seem to find this an awkward question.
 * **What was it like for you to find that true voice?** This was a descriptive question that encourages the participant to share personal information at a deeper level of meaning. This was thought provoking and may have been something he had never really thought about before this interview.
 * **When you think about process of creative writing, how do you see song lyrics and poems relating to each other?** This is a contrast question that uses the similarity principle (writing symbols that share some similar features)
 * **Walk me through the last time you wrote a poem and what it was like for you.** This appears to be a specific grand tour descriptive question that asks the participant to talk about a recent event.
 * **You talked a little about novel writing. Can you think of a time of writing a chapter in a novel? What was it like?** This is a descriptive question followed by a structural question. Therefore, the concurrent principle was used.
 * **You were talking about implementing, mapping…when it works for you. What happens when it doesn’t work for you?** This is a directed contrast question that is relevant to the participant.
 * **You mentioned about writing in first person**. Can you tell me about that? This is a descriptive question. KB used a writing term that the participant used and asked him to expand on it.
 * **Do you recall the last time you had a writing block?** This sounds like a closed-ended question instead of an open-ended question. However, the participant by this time has established rapport and knows to provide ample information.
 * **How was this process compared with the other interviews, like the first and second interviews?** The question uses the triadic contrast principle. KB asked the participant to compare one interview to two previous interviews. This question was not specific to writing, but to the process of the interviews.

=From Beth Newman=

I thought the interview was very smooth overall. There did appear to be a few instances when the interviewer was a little unsure about which direction to follow. The participant was quite forthcoming and shared willingly about how the writing process works for him. I was able to distinguish several types of questions during the conversation including structural, descriptive, and contrast. Once you understood what to look for, it was not difficult to distinguish between the three most of the time. Karen pretty much broke down the specifics in her reflections, so I won’t go into detail here. The knowledge being generated appeared, at least to me, to concern the writing process as it is experienced by Alex. One contrast question did ask him to compare his writing now to a time in the past. I wonder how he would have responded if asked to compare his writing or his writing process to someone well known, like Hemmingway for instance. I thought the wrap-up to the interview was excellent. The direction that would be taken next was outlined well and you just had a good sense of closure to this session, but also expectation for the next.

=From Carol Lane= September 13, 2006

I had trouble retrieving the entire in-depth video presentation because of my dial-up connection, so I found it necessary to make a quick purchase of DSL to assist me in these technology endeavors! However, I was able to listen to about 10 minutes of the interview, and I found it very beneficial to my understanding of the interviewing process. I liked the discussion KB had with Alex about 'developing voice' and his explanation of voice being a writer's style; he suggested that his style was almost casual and conversational, which seemed to go along with his easy nature and personality. In asking descriptive questions, KB attempted to get Alex to describe the process, what it was like when he was really inspired to write; it's like she was really trying to discover the depth of his writing experience, to get to the core of it. I also liked the way she asked many times, "walk me through what it was like"...exemplifying an effort to understand his writing process. She employed structural questions by asking about the devices he used in writing, "Can you list some of the devices you use"...

The type of knowledge generated from this interview was an understanding of what the writing experience was like for Alex, from his perspective. She continued to probe to get to a deeper understanding of this experience, which is what I think interviewing is about.

The video clip was beneficial to me because it provided an excellent example of interviewing which enhanced my understanding of this process.