Interview+reactions

__Response to Feminist Interview:__

This interview certainly was different than the one I viewed last week (even though, like others in the class, I viewed the introductory clip for that assignment rather than the in-depth interview). For this interview, KB was more overtly in the middle of the process – talking a lot more; sharing much more of her own experience; going on for extended periods of time with her story; at times even contrasting his experience with hers. It was interesting to hear from Alex, at the end of the interview, that he felt more relaxed during this exchange. I wondered whether that ease was due to the format of the interview or the amount of time he and KB had been involved in addressing these concerns. I noted that he asked her some questions in the process, as well, which probably helped equalize some of the power differential of the interview process.

This interview had more of a feel of being a co-constructed dialogue. Alex’ experiences were the subject of the conversation, but there was more permission for KB’s experiences also to be part of the conversation. Nonetheless, in spite of KB interjecting more of herself into this process, she seemed able to use her story as a means to lead back into Alex’ story. This dynamic gave direction to the interview, reinforced the boundary that made this distinct from casual conversation, and sustained their respective roles as interviewer and interviewee.

________________________________________________________________________

__Response to Phenomenological Interview:__

This was a hard interview to watch. It seemed to go on interminably without much focus or direction. The first thing I noticed was how passive KB seemed – just sitting there letting Alex go on indefinitely. As a result of such minimal exchange, the questions didn’t seem to flow. In fact I was surprised when half way through the tape KB said she was trying to get at the essence of what Alex was about as a writer. The questions that preceded that remark had seemed so random that I didn’t realize anymore than Alex did where she was trying to go in the interview. I did note that she used a lot of, “Can you tell me about a time …” type of questions throughout this interview. On the one hand, this left Alex very free to tell his story; on the other hand, it didn’t provide much direction to the interview.

This lack of direction continued even after KB stated that she was trying to get at the essence of Alex’ writing. At least part of the reason for this was that he didn’t always respond directly to what I thought she was asking. Stories are good, but sometimes they can take people off into other subject areas that don’t really answer what is being asked. Even after the mid-tape re-direction, I still didn’t feel like I learned much about the essence of Alex’ writing. I realize that KB has acknowledged that this was a difficult interview for her because she doesn’t really accept the foundational existence of “essence”, but I am not convinced that the problem was her technique or discomfort. Rather this form of questioning didn’t seem to do a good job of helping Alex go deeper in his story.

________________________________________________________________________

__Response to In-depth Interview:__

This interview was easier for me to follow. It helped that KB outlined the plan of the interview at the very beginning. Throughout the interview she used mostly descriptive questions to get Alex to tell his story. A few structural questions were mixed in to follow up on questions and to try to get Alex to go deeper with some of his responses. This interview felt less conversational than the Feminist but more structured than the Phenomenological interviews. It seemed exploratory, with KB guiding the process but still leaving Alex plenty of room to go in whatever directions he chose.

One technique that stood out to me in the interview was KB’s repetition of questions in seeking to get Alex to go deeper, as well as her ability to re-phrase questions in other ways to help him explore an issue from a different frame of reference. I thought it was important that KB asked about various types of writing in which Alex engages. Equally important was her questions about the issue of writer’s block. This was an example of helping him explore an issue from different points of reference.

KB’s careful following of Alex’ words gave me the impression that she was attending closely to his presentation. I think this also communicated affirmation of his experience. He seemed relaxed and able to go deeper than what I heard in the other interviews (although this may have been more related to the fact that this was the last of the interviews than the particular format). I did feel that this interview came closer to approaching the essence of Alex’ writing (whatever that may be) than did the Phenomenological interview.

________________________________________________________________________

Of the three interviews addressed above, I think I liked the In-depth Interview the best. As I said above, KB seemed to be able to help Alex go deeper in this interview than with the other formats. I liked the conversationalism of the Feminist Interview, but I think that one would have to be careful not to get in the way of the interview process by getting carried away with one’s own story – to the exclusion of the interviewee’s story. The Feminist Interview seemed a very active format and the Phenomenological Interview a very passive format, with the In-depth Interview seeming to be more of a moderate track to follow. I’m not clear yet on what my project will be, but I suspect I will follow the In-depth motif more closely than the other two formats.