U7D1-68 - **READ AND FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS AS OUTLINED BELOW.. Research Methodology Peer Review.

Asking Singular Questions

One of the basic rules of questionnaire writing is that each item must be singular—that is, no more than one idea should be contained in any given question. Consider this example:

How well do you know and like the staff in this program?

a. A lot b. Pretty much c. Not too much d. Not at all

This item is impossible to interpret in analysis because it asks two questions:

1. How well do you know the staff?

2. How much do you like the staff?

When one turns to open-ended interviewing, however, many people seem to think that singular questions are no longer called for. Precision gives way to vagueness and confused multiplicity, as in the illustration in this section. I’ve seen transcripts of interviews conducted by experienced and well-known field researchers in which several questions have been thrown together, which they might think are related but which are likely to confuse the person being interviewed about what is really being asked.

To help the staff improve the program, we’d like to ask you to talk about your opinion of the program: What you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the program? What you like? What you don’t like? What you think could be improved or should stay the same? Those kinds of things—and any other comments you have.

The evaluator who used this question regularly in interviewing argued that by asking a series of questions he could find out which was most salient to the person being interviewed because the interviewee was forced to choose what he or she most cared about in order to respond to the question. The evaluator would then probe more specifically in those areas that were not answered in the initial question.

It’s necessary to distinguish, then, between giving an overview of a series of questions at the beginning of a sequence, and then asking each one singularly, versus laying out a whole series of questions at once, and then seeing which one strikes a respondent’s fancy. In my experience, multiple questions create tension and confusion because the person being interviewed doesn’t really know what is being asked. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a program is not the same as reporting what one likes and dislikes. Likewise, recommendations for change may be unrelated to strengths, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes. The following is an excerpt from an interview with a parent participating in a family education program aimed at helping parents become more effective as parents.

Q: Based on your experience, what would you say are the strengths of this program?

A: The other parents. Different parents can get together and talk about what being a parent is like for them. The program is really parents with parents. Parents really

need to talk to other parents about what they do, and what works and doesn’t work. It’s the parents, it really is.!

Q: What about weaknesses?

A: I don’t know. . . . I guess I’m not always sure that the program is really getting to the parents who need it the most. I don’t know how you do that, but I just think there are probably a lot of parents out there who need the program and . . . especially maybe single-parent families. And fathers. It’s really hard to get fathers into something like this. It should just get to everybody and that’s real hard.

Q: Let me turn now to your personal likes and dislikes about the program. What are some of the things that you have really liked about the program?

A: I’d put the staff right at the top of that. I really like the program director. She’s really well educated and knows a lot, but she never makes us feel dumb. We can say anything or ask anything. She treats us like people, like equals even. I like the other parents. And I like being able to bring my daughter along. They take her into the child’s part of the program, but we also have some activities together. But it’s also good for her to have her activities with other kids, and I get some time with other parents.

Q: What about dislikes? What are some things you don’t like so much about the program?

A: I don’t like the schedule much. We meet in the afternoons after lunch, and it kind of breaks into the day at a bad time for me, but there isn’t any really good time for all the parents, and I know they’ve tried different times. Time is always going to be a hassle for people. Maybe they could just offer different things at different times. The room we meet in isn’t too great, but that’s no big deal.

Q: Okay, you’ve given us a lot of information about your experiences in the program, strengths and weaknesses you’ve observed, and some of the things you’ve liked and haven’t liked so much. Now I’d like to ask you about your recommendations for the program. If you had the power to change things about the program, what would you make different?

A: Well, I guess the first thing is money. It’s always money. I just think they should put, you know, the legislature should put more money into programs like this. I don’t know how much the director gets paid, but I hear that she’s not even getting paid as much as school teachers. She should get paid like a professional. I think there should be more of these programs and more money in them.

Oh, I know what I’d recommend. We talked about it one time in our group. It would be neat to have some parents who have already been through the program come back and talk with new grou\ps about what they’ve done with their kids since they’ve been in the program, you know, like problems that they didn’t expect or things that didn’t work out, or just getting the benefit of the experiences of parents who’ve already been through the program to help new parents. We talked about that one day and thought that would be a neat thing to do. I don’t know if it would work, but it would be a neat thing. I wouldn’t mind doing it, I guess.

Notice that each of these questions elicited a different response. Strengths, weaknesses, likes, dislikes, and recommendations—each question meant something different and deserved to be asked

separately. Qualitative interviewing can be deepened through thoughtful, focused, and distinct questions.

A consistent theme runs through this discussion of question formulation: The wording used in asking questions can make a significant difference in the quality of responses elicited. The interviewer who throws out a bunch of questions all at once to see which one takes hold puts an unnecessary burden on the interviewee to decipher what is being asked. Moreover, multiple questions asked at the same time suggests that the interviewer hasn’t figured out what question should be asked at that juncture in the interview. Taking the easy way out by asking several questions at once transfers the burden of clarity from the interviewer to the interviewee.

Asking several questions at once can also waste precious interview time. In evaluation interviews, for example, both interviewers and respondents typically have only so much time to give to an interview. To make the best use of that time, it is helpful to think through priority questions that will elicit relevant responses. This means that the interviewer must know what issues are important enough to ask questions about and to ask those questions in a way that the person being interviewed can clearly identify what he or she is being asked—that is, to ask clear questions.

Clarity of Questions

If names are not correct, language will not be in accordance with the truth of things. —Confucius

The interviewer bears the responsibility to pose questions that make it clear to the interviewee what is being asked. Asking understandable questions facilitates establishing rapport. Unclear questions can make the person being interviewed feel uncomfortable, ignorant, confused, or hostile. Asking singular questions helps a great deal to make things clear. Other factors also contribute to clarity.

First, in preparing for an interview, find out what special terms are commonly used by people in the setting. For example, state and national programs often have different titles and language at the local level. CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act Programs) was designed as a national program in which local contractors were funded to establish and implement services in their area. We found that participants only knew these programs by the name of the local contractor, such as “Youth Employment Services,” “Work for Youth,” and “Working Opportunities for Women.” Many participants in these programs did not even know that they were in CETA programs. Conducting an interview with these participants where they were asked about their “CETA experience” would have been confusing and disruptive to the interview.

When I was doing fieldwork in Burkina Faso, the national government was run by the military after a coup d’etat. Local officials carried the title “commandant” (commander). However, no one referred to the government as a military government. To do so was not only politically incorrect but risky too. The appropriate official phrase mandated by the rulers in the capitol, Ouagadougou, was “the people’s government.”

Second, clarity can be sharpened by understanding what language participants use among themselves in talking about a setting, activities, or other aspects of life. When we interviewed juveniles who had been placed in foster group homes by juvenile courts, we had to spend a good

deal of preparatory time trying to find out how the juveniles typically referred to the group home parents, to their natural parents, to probation officers, and to each other in order to ask questions clearly about each of those sets of people. For example, when asking about relationships with peers, should we use the word juveniles, adolescents, youth, teenagers, or what? In preparation for the interviews, we checked with a number of juveniles, group home parents, and court authorities about the proper language to use. We were advised to refer to “the other kids in the group home.” However, we found no consensus about how “kids in the group home” referred to group home parents. Thus, one of the questions we had to ask in each interview was “What do you usually call Mr. and Mrs. __________?” We then used the language given to us by that youth throughout the rest of the interview to refer to group home parents.

Third, providing clarity in interview questions may mean avoiding using labels altogether. This means that when asking about a particular phenomenon or program component, it may be better to first find out what the interviewee believes that phenomenon to be and then ask questions about the descriptions provided by the person being interviewed. In studying officially designated “open classrooms” in North Dakota, I interviewed parents who had children in those classrooms. (Open classrooms were designed to be more informal, integrated, community based, project oriented, and experiential than traditional classrooms.) However, many of the teachers and local school officials did not use the term open to refer to these classrooms because they wanted to avoid political conflicts and stereotypes that were sometimes associated with the notion of “open education.” Thus, when interviewing parents, we could not ask their opinions about “open education.” Rather, we had to pursue a sequence of questions like the following:

What kinds of differences, if any, have you noticed between your child’s classroom in the past year and the classroom this year? (Parent responds.)

Ok, you’ve mentioned several differences. Let me ask you your opinion about each of the things you’ve mentioned. What do you think about _______?

This strategy avoids the problem of collecting responses that later turn out to be uninterpretable because you can’t be sure what respondents meant by what they said. Their opinions and judgments are grounded in descriptions, in their own words, of what they’ve experienced and what they’re assessing.

A related problem emerged in interviewing children about their classrooms. We wanted to find out how basic skills were taught in “open” classrooms. In preparing for the interviews, we learned that many teachers avoided terms like math time or reading time because they wanted to integrate math and reading into other activities. In some cases, we learned during parent interviews, children reported to parents that they didn’t do any “math” in school. These same children would be working on projects, such as the construction of a model of their town using milk cartons, that required geometry, fractions, and reductions to scale, but they did not perceive of these activities as “math” because they associated math with worksheets and workbooks. Thus, to find out the kind of math activities children were doing, it was necessary to talk with them in detail about specific projects and work they were engaged in without asking them the simple question, “What kind of math do you do in the classroom?”

Another example of problems in clarity comes from follow-up interviews with mothers whose children were victims of sexual abuse. A major part of the interview focused on experiences with and reactions to the child protection agency, the police, welfare workers, the court system, the school counselor, probation officers, and other parts of the enormously complex system constructed to deal with child sexual abuse. We learned quickly that mothers could seldom differentiate the

parts of the system. They didn’t know when they were dealing with the courts, the child protection people, the welfare system, or some treatment program. It was all “the system.” They had strong feelings and opinions about “the system,” so our questions had to remain general, about the system, rather than specifically asking about the separate parts of the system (Patton, 1991).

The theme running through these suggestions for increasing the clarity of questions centers on the importance of using language that is understandable and part of the frame of reference of the person being interviewed. It means taking special care to find out what language the interviewee uses. Questions that use the respondent’s own language are most likely to be clear. This means being sensitive to “languaculture” by attending to “meanings that lead the researcher beyond the words into the nature of the speaker’s world” (Agar, 2000, pp. 93–94). This sensitivity to local language, the “emic perspective” in anthropology, is usually discussed in relation to data analysis in which a major focus is illuminating a setting or culture through its language. Here, however, we’re discussing languaculture not as an analytical framework but as a way of enhancing data collection during interviewing by increasing clarity, communicating respect, and facilitating rapport.

Using words that make sense to the interviewee, words that reflect the respondent’s worldview, will improve the quality of data obtained during the interview. Without sensitivity to the impact of particular words on the person being interviewed, an answer may make no sense at all—or there may be no answer. A Sufi story makes this point quite nicely.

A man had fallen between the rails in a subway station. People were all crowding around trying to get him out before the train ran him over. They were all shouting. “Give me your hand!” but the man would not reach up.

Mulla Nasrudin elbowed his way through the crowd and leaned over the man. “Friend,” he asked, “what is your profession?”

“I am an income tax inspector,” gasped the man.

“In that case,” said Nasrudin, “take my hand!”

The man immediately grasped the Mulla’s hand and was hauled to safety. Nasrudin turned to the amazed by-standers. “Never ask a tax man to give you anything, you fools,” he said. (Shah, 1973, p. 68)

Before leaving the issue of clarity, let me offer one other suggestion: Be especially careful asking “why” questions.

Why to Take Care Asking “Why?”

Three Zen masters were discussing a flapping flag on a pole. The first observed dryly: “The flag moves.”

“No,” said the second. “Wind is moving.”

“No,” said the third. “It is not flag. It is not wind. It is mind moving.”

“Why” questions presuppose that things happen for a reason and that those reasons are knowable. “Why” questions presume cause–effect relationships, an ordered world, and rationality. “Why” questions move beyond what has happened, what one has experienced, how one feels, what one opines, and what one knows to the making of analytical and deductive inferences.

The problems in deducing causal inferences have been thoroughly explored by philosophers of science (Bunge, 1959; Nagel, 1961). On a more practical level and more illuminative of interviewing challenges, reports from parents about “why” conversations with their children document the difficulty of providing causal explanations about the world. The infinite regression quality of “why” questions is part of the difficulty engendered by using them as part of an interview. Consider this parent–child exchange:

Dad, why does it get dark at night?

Because our side of the earth turns away from the sun.

Dad, why does our side of the earth turn away from the sun?

Because that’s the way the world was made.

Dad, why was the world made that way?

So that there would be light and dark.

Dad, why should there be dark? Why can’t it just be light all the time?

Because then we would get too hot.

Why would we get too hot?

Because the sun would be shining on us all the time.

Why can’t the sun be cooler sometimes?

It is, that’s why we have night.

But why can’t we just have a cooler sun?

Because that’s the way the world is.

Why is the world like that?

It just is. Because . . . .

Because why?

Just because.

Oh.

Daddy?

Yes.

Why don’t you know why it gets dark?

In a program evaluation interview, it might seem that the context for asking a “why” question would be clearer. However, if a precise reason for a particular activity is what is wanted, it is usually possible to ask that question in a way that does not involve using the word why. Let’s look first at the difficulty posed for the respondent by the “why” question and then look at some alternative phrases.

“Why did you join this program?” The actual reasons for joining the program probably consist of some constellation of factors, including the influences of other people, the nature of the program, the nature of the person being interviewed, the interviewee’s expectations, and practical considerations. It is unlikely that an interviewee can sort through all of these levels of possibility at once, so the person to whom the question is posed must pick out some level at which to respond.

• “Because it takes place at a convenient time.” (programmatic reason)

• “Because I’m a joiner.” (personality reason)

• “Because a friend told me about the program.” (information reason)

• “Because my priest told me about the program and said he thought it would be good for me.” (social influence reason)

• “Because it was inexpensive.” (economic reason)

• “Because I wanted to learn about the things they’re teaching in the program.” (outcomes reason)

• “Because God directed me to join the program.” (personal motivation reason)

• “Because it was there.” (philosophical reason)

Anyone being interviewed could respond at any or all of these levels. The interviewer must decide before conducting the interview which of these levels carries sufficient importance to make it worth asking a question. If the primary evaluation question concerns characteristics of the program that attracted participants, then instead of asking “Why did you join?” the interviewer should ask something like the following: “What was it about the program that attracted you to it?” If the evaluator is interested in learning about the social influences that led to participation in a program, either voluntary or involuntary participation, a question like the following could be used:

Other people sometimes influence what we do. What other people, if any, played a role in your joining this program?

In some cases, the evaluator may be particularly interested in the characteristics of participants, so the question might be phrased in the following fashion:

I’m interested in learning more about you as a person and your personal involvement in this program. What is it about you—your situation, your personality, your desires, whatever—what is it about you that you think led you to become part of this program?

When used as a probe, “why” questions can imply that a person’s response was somehow inappropriate. “Why did you do that?” may sound like doubt that an action (or feeling) was justified. A simple “Tell me more, if you will, about your thinking on that” may be more inviting.

The point is that by thinking carefully about what you want to know and being sensitive to what the interviewee will hear in your question, there is a greater likelihood that respondents will supply answers that make sense—and are relevant, usable, and interpretable. My cautions about the difficulties raised with “why” questions come from trying to analyze such questions when responses covered such a multitude of dimensions that it was clear different people were responding to different things. This makes analysis unwieldy.

Perhaps my reservations about the use of “why” questions come from having appeared the fool when asking such questions during interviews with children. In our open classroom interviews, several teachers had mentioned that children often became so involved in what they were doing that they chose not to go outside for recess. We decided to check this out with the children.

“What’s your favorite time in school?” I asked a first grader.

“Recess,” she answered quickly.

“Why do you like recess?”

“Because we go outside and play on the swings.”

“Why do you go outside?” I asked.

“Because that’s where the swings are!”

She replied with a look of incredulity that adults could ask such stupid questions, then explained helpfully, “If you want to swing on the swings, you have to go outside where the swings are.”

Children take interview questions quite literally, and so it becomes clear quickly when a question is not well thought out. It was during those days of interviewing children in North Dakota that I learned about the problems with “why” questions.

©2002 Michael Quinn Patton and Michael Cochran

MODULE

60 Rapport, Neutrality, and the Interview Relationship

The four essential elements of the universe are light, energy, time, and rapport. —Halcolm

Rapport Through Neutrality

As an interviewer, I want to establish rapport with the person I am interviewing, but that rapport must be established in a way that it does not undermine my neutrality concerning what the person tells me. I must be nonjudgmental. Neutrality means that the person being interviewed can tell me anything without engendering either my favor or disfavor. I cannot be shocked; I cannot be angered; I cannot be embarrassed; I cannot be saddened. Nothing the person tells me will make me think more or less of her or him. Openness and trust flow from nonjudgmental rapport.

At the same time that I am neutral with regard to the content of what is being said to me, I care very much that that person is willing to share with me what he or she is saying. Rapport is a stance vis-à-vis the person being interviewed. Neutrality is a stance vis-à-vis the content of what that person says. Rapport means that I respect the people being interviewed, so what they say is important because of who is saying it. I want to convey to them that their knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and feelings are important. Yet I will not judge them for the content of what they say to me.

SIDEBAR

EMPATHIC NEUTRALITY

Empathic neutrality is one of the 12 core strategies of qualitative inquiry discussed in Chapter 2. (See Exhibit 2.1 and pages 46–47. )

Naturalistic inquiry involves fieldwork that puts one in close contact with people and their problems. What is to be the researcher’s cognitive and emotional stance toward those people and problems? No universal prescription can capture the range of possibilities, for the answer will depend on the situation, the nature of the inquiry, and the perspective of the researcher. But thinking strategically, I offer the phrase “empathic neutrality” as a point of departure. It connotes a middle ground between becoming too involved, which can cloud judgment, and remaining too distant, which can reduce understanding. What is empathic neutrality? In essence, it is understanding a person’s situation and perspective without judging the person—and communicating that understanding with authenticity to build rapport, trust, and openness.

Reflections on Empathic Neutrality From an Experienced International Program Evaluator

For me there is a big difference between being empathetic when you interview (like when I work with full-blown AIDS patients, abused women, or orphans—seriously how can you not be touched?) and taking on evaluations because you are empathetic (as I often do) and therefore care about getting good empirical data. Let me explain.

Being empathetic, and really caring, should make an evaluator do an even better EMPIRICAL job. For me, when I am involved emotionally (which I usually am), I need to try even harder because I realize that it is UP TO ME (I take that all on. . . . ) to make sure that when the critics come around, I have ensured that the program has a strong Theory of Change and Theory of Action and data to evaluate the program, and, data to support making changes in order to make it a stronger program. That holds true for impact evaluations as well. If I don’t find a program effective then I also think how that money could be spent on a MORE EFFECTIVE program that WILL change people's lives. It’s not that I want the program to be successful in itself (thus my neutrality), I want people to have better lives (the basis for empathy). If I was neutral about influencing people’s lives, I wouldn’t try so hard. I care, so I work very hard to do a good job.

I am sometimes told, “But you are [an] inside evaluator so you are biased.” AGHH! I am an inside evaluator so I know all the dirty laundry, which makes me better able to identify critical points of data to inform improvements. If anything being inside enables me to [be] MORE critical, because you can’t hide anything from me.

—Donna Podems, PhD

Director, Otherwise Research and Evaluation

Cape Town, South Africa

Rapport is built by conveying empathy and understanding without judgment. In this section, I want to focus on ways of wording questions that are particularly aimed at conveying that important sense of neutrality.

Using Illustrative Examples in Questions

One kind of question wording that can help establish neutrality is the illustrative examples format. When phrasing questions in this way, I want to let the person I’m interviewing know that I’ve pretty much heard it all—the bad things and the good—and so I’m not interested in something that is particularly sensational, particularly negative, or especially positive. I’m really only interested in what that person’s genuine experience has been. I want to elicit open and honest judgments from them without making them worry about my judging what they say. Consider this example of the illustrative examples format from interviews we conducted with juvenile delinquents who had been placed in foster group homes. One section of the interview was aimed at finding out how the juveniles were treated by group home parents.

Okay, now I’d like to ask you to tell me how you were treated in the group home by the parents. Some kids have told us they were treated like one of the family; some kids have told us that they got knocked around and beat up by the group home parents; some kids have told us about sexual things that were done to them; some of the kids have told us about fun things and trips they did with the parents; some kids have felt they were treated really well and some have said they were treated pretty bad. What about you—how have you been treated in the group home?

A closely related approach is the illustrative extremes format—giving examples only of extreme responses. This question is from a follow-up study of award recipients who received a substantial fellowship with no strings attached.

How much of the award, if any, did you spend on entirely personal things to treat yourself well? Some fellows have told us they spent a sizable portion of the award on things like a new car, a hot tub, fixing up their house, personal trips, and family. Others spent almost nothing on themselves and put it all into their work. How about you?

In both the illustrative examples format and the illustrative extremes format, it is critical to avoid asking leading questions. Leading questions are the opposite of neutral questions; they give the interviewee hints about what would be a desirable or appropriate kind of answer. Leading questions “lead” the respondent in a certain direction. Below are questions I found on transcripts during review of an evaluation project carried out by a reputable university center.

“We’ve been hearing a lot of really positive comments about this program. So what’s your assessment?”

or

“We’ve already heard that this place has lots of troubles, so feel free to tell us about the troubles you’ve seen.”

or

“I imagine it must be horrible to have a child abused and have to deal with the system, so you can be honest with me. How bad was it?”

Each of these questions builds in a response bias that communicates the interviewer’s belief about the situation prior to hearing the respondent’s assessment. The questions are “leading” in the sense that the interviewee can be led into acquiescence with the interviewer’s point of view.

In contrast, the questions offered below to demonstrate the illustrative examples format included several dimensions to provide a balance between what might be construed as positive and negative kinds of responses. I prefer to use the illustrative example format primarily as a clarifying strategy after having begun with a simple, straightforward, and truly open-ended question: “What do you think about this program?” or “What has been your experience with the system?” Only if this initial question fails to elicit a thoughtful response, or if the interviewee seems to be struggling, will I offer illustrative examples to facilitate a deeper response.

Role-Playing and Simulation Questions

Providing context for a series of questions can help the interviewee hone in on relevant responses. A helpful context provides cues about the level at which a response is expected. One way of providing such a context is to role-play with persons being interviewed, asking them to respond to the interviewer as if he or she were someone else.

Suppose I was a new person who just came into this program, and I asked you what I should do to succeed here, what would you tell me?

or

Suppose I was a new kid in this group home, and I didn’t know anything about what goes on around here, what would you tell me about the rules that I have to be sure to follow?

These questions provide a context for what would otherwise be quite difficult questions, for example, “How does one get the most out of this program?” or “What are the rules of this group home?” The role-playing format emphasizes the interviewees’ expertise—that is, it puts him or her in the role of expert because he or she knows something of value to someone else. The interviewee is the insider with inside information. The interviewer, in contrast, as an outsider, takes on the role of novice or apprentice. The “expert” is being asked to share his or her expertise with the novice. I’ve often observed interviewees become more animated and engaged when asked role-playing questions. They get into the role.

A variation on the role-playing format involves the interviewer dissociating somewhat from the question to make it feel less personal and probing. Consider these two difficult questions for a study of a tough subject: teenage suicide.

“What advice would you give someone your age who was contemplating suicide?”

versus

“Think of someone you know and like who is moody. Suppose that person told you that he or she was contemplating suicide. What would you tell that person?”

The first question comes across as abrupt and demanding, almost like an examination to see if he or she knows the right answer. The second question, with the interviewee allowed to create a personal context, is softened and, hopefully, more inviting. While this technique can be overused and can sound phony if asked insensitively, with the right intonation communicating genuine interest and used sparingly, with subtlety, the role-playing format can ease the asking of difficult questions to deepen answers and enhance the quality of responses.

Simulation questions provide context in a different way, by asking the person being interviewed to imagine himself or herself in the situation in which the interviewer is interested.

Suppose I was present with you during a staff meeting. What would I see going on? Take me there.

or

Suppose I was in your classroom at the beginning of the day when the students first come in. What would I see happening as the students came in? Take me to your classroom, and let me see what happens during the first 10 to 15 minutes as the students arrive—what you’d be doing, what they’d be doing, what those first 15 minutes are like.

In effect, these questions ask the interviewee to become an observer. In most cases, a response to this question will require the interviewee to visualize the situation to be described. I frequently find that the richest and most detailed descriptions come from a series of questions that ask a respondent to reexperience and/or simulate some aspect of an experience.

Presupposition Questions

Presupposition questions involve a twist on the theme of empathic neutrality. Presuppositions have been identified by linguists as a grammatical structure that creates rapport by assuming shared knowledge and assumptions (Bandler & Grinder, 1975; Kartunnen, 1973). Natural language is

filled with presuppositions. In the course of our day-to-day communications, we often employ presuppositions without knowing we’re doing so. By becoming aware of the effects of presupposition questions, we can use them strategically in interviewing. The skillful interviewer uses presuppositions to increase the richness and depth of responses.

What then are presuppositions? Linguists Bandler & Grinder (1975) define presuppositions as follows:

When each of us uses a natural language system to communicate, we assume that the listener can decode complex sound structures into meanings, i.e., the listener has the ability to derive the Deep-Structure meaning from the Surface-Structure we present to him auditorily. . . . We also assume the complex skill of listeners to derive extra meaning from some Surface-Structures by the nature of their form. Even though neither the speaker nor the listener may be aware of this process, it goes on all the time. For example, if someone says: I want to watch Kung Fu tonight on TV we must understand that Kung Fu is on TV tonight in order to process the sentence “I want to watch . . . ” to make any sense. These processes are called presuppositions of natural language. (p. 241)

Used in interviewing, presuppositions communicate that the respondent has something to say, thereby increasing the likelihood that the person being interviewed will, indeed, have something to say. Consider the following question: “What is the most important experience you have had in the program?” This question presupposes that the respondent has had an important experience. Of course, the response may be “I haven’t had any important experiences.” However, it is more likely that the interviewee will internally access an experience to report as important rather than dealing first with the question of whether or not an important experience has occurred.

EXHIBIT 7.10 Illustrative Dichotomous Versus Presupposition Questions

Listed below, on the left, are typical dichotomous questions used to introduce a longer series of questions. On the right are presupposition questions that bypass the dichotomous lead-in query and, in some cases, show how adding “if any” retains a neutral framing.

Contrast the presupposition format—“What is the most important experience you have had in the program?”—to the following dichotomous question: “Have you had any experiences in the program that you would call really important?” This dichotomous framing of the question requires the person to make a decision about what an important experience is and whether one has occurred. The presupposition format bypasses this initial step by asking directly for description rather than asking for an affirmation of the existence of the phenomenon in question. Exhibit 7.10 contrasts typical dichotomous response questions with presuppositions that bypass the dichotomous lead-in

query and, in some cases, show how adding “if any” retains a neutral framing. Compare the two question formats, and think about how you would likely respond to each.

A naturalness of inquiry flows from presuppositions making more comfortable what might otherwise be embarrassing or intrusive questions. The presupposition includes the implication that what is presupposed is the natural way things occur. It is natural for there to be conflict in programs. The presupposition provides a stimulus that asks the respondent to mentally access the answer to the question directly without making a decision about whether or not something has actually occurred.

I first learned about interview presuppositions from a friend who worked with the agency in New York City that had responsibility for interviewing carriers of venereal disease. His job was to find out about the carrier’s previous sexual contracts so that those persons could be informed that they might have venereal disease. He had learned to avoid asking men “Have you had any sexual relationships with other men?” Instead, he asked, “How many sexual contacts with other men have you had?” The dichotomous question carried the burden for the respondent of making a decision about some admission of homosexuality and/or promiscuity. The presupposition form of the open- ended question implied that some sexual contacts with other men might be quite natural and focused on the frequency of occurrence rather than on whether or not such sexual contacts have occurred at all. The venereal disease interviewers found that they were much more likely to generate open responses with the presupposition format than with the dichotomous response format.

The purpose of in-depth interviews is to find out what someone has to say. By presupposing that the person being interviewed does, indeed, has something to say, the quality of the descriptions received may be enhanced. However, a note of warning: Presuppositions, like any single form of questioning, can be overused. Presuppositions are one option. There are many times when it is more comfortable and appropriate to check out the relevance of a question with a dichotomous inquiry (Did you go to the lecture?) before asking further questions (What did you think of the lecture?)

EXHIBIT 7.11 Summary of Question Formats to Facilitate Communicating Interviewer Neutrality

Summary of Skillful Questioning to Communicate Neutrality

We’ve reviewed five question formats to communicate neutrality and help establish rapport. Exhibit 7.11 reviews and summarizes these question types: (1) illustrative examples format, (2) illustrative extremes format, (3) role-playing questions, (4) simulation questions, and (5) presupposition questions. But as important as skillful questioning is, and I believe it’s quite important, it is even more important to be attentive to and mindful about the overall patterns of interaction that emerge during an interview and ultimately determine the kind of relationship that gets built between interviewer and interviewee. Rapport and empathy reside in that relationship.

Beyond Skillful Questioning: Relationship-Focused, Interactive Interview Approaches

The interview is a specific form of conversation where knowledge is produced through the interaction between an interviewer and an interviewee. . . .

If you want to know how people understand their world and their lives, why not talk with them? Conversation is a basic mode of human interaction. Human beings talk with each other, they interact, pose questions and answer questions. Through conversations we get to know other people, get to learn about their experiences, feelings and hopes and the world they live in. In an interview conversation, the researcher asks about, and listens to, what people themselves tell about their lived world, about their dreams, fears and hopes, hears their views and opinions in their own words, and learns about their school and work situation—their family and social life. The research interview is an interview where knowledge is constructed in the inter-action between the interviewer and the interviewee. (Kvale, 2007, pp. xvii, 1)

As we discussed earlier in this chapter, some approaches to interviewing focus on standardizing the interview protocol so that each person interviewed is asked the same questions in the same way. That standardization is considered the foundation of validity and reliability in traditional social science interviewing (see Exhibit 7.1, pp. 423–424). In contrast, other qualitative methodologists emphasize that the depth, honesty, and quality of responses in an interview depend on the relationship that develops between the interviewee and the interviewer (Josselson, 2013). Exhibit 7.12 presents six relationship-focused, interactive interview approaches aimed at establishing rapport, empathy, mutual respect, and mutual trust. It is important not to get so caught up in trying to word questions perfectly that you miss the dynamics of the unfolding relationship that is at the heart of interactive interviewing.

EXHIBIT 7.12 Six Relationship-Focused, Interactive Interview Approaches

Below are six relationship-focused, interactive interview approaches aimed at establishing rapport, empathy, mutual respect, and mutual trust.

Pacing and Transitions in Interviewing

The longer an interview, the more important it is to be aware of pacing and transitions. The popular admonition to “go with the flow” alerts us to the fact that flow varies. Sometimes there are long stretches of calm water in a river trip; then around a corner, there are rapids. A river narrows and widens as it flows. To “go with the flow,” you must be aware of the flow. Interviews have their own flow. Here are some ways to manage the flow.

Prefatory Statements and Announcements

The interaction between interviewer and interviewee is greatly facilitated when the interviewer alerts the interviewee to what is about to be asked before it is actually asked. Think of it as warming up the respondent, or ringing the interviewee’s mental doorbell. This is done with prefatory statements that introduce a question. These can serve two functions. First, a preface alerts the interviewees to the nature of the question that is coming, directs their awareness, and focuses their attention. Second, an introduction to a question gives respondents a few seconds to organize

their thoughts before responding. Prefaces, transition announcements, and introductory statements help smooth the flow of the interview. Any of several formats can be used.

The transition format announces that one section or topic of the interview has been completed and a new section or topic is about to begin.

We’ve been talking about the goals and objectives of the program. Now I’d like to ask you some questions about actual program activities. What are the major activities offered to participants in this program?

or

We’ve been talking about your childhood family experiences. Now I’d like to ask you about your memories of and experiences in school.

The transition format essentially says to the interviewee, “This is where we’ve been . . . , and this is where we’re going.” Questions prefaced by transition statements help maintain the smooth flow of an interview.

An alternative format is the summarizing transition. This involves bringing closure to a section of the interview by summarizing what has been said and asking if the interviewee has anything to add or clarify before moving on to a new subject.

Before we move on to the next set of questions, let me make sure I’ve got everything you said about the program goals and objectives. You said the program had five goals. First, . . . Second, . . .

Before I ask you some questions about program activities related to these goals, are there any additional goals or objectives that you want to add?

The summarizing transition lets the person being interviewed know that the interviewer is actively listening to and recording what is being said. The summary invites the interviewee to make clarifications, corrections, or additions before moving on to a new topic.

The direct announcement format simply states what will be asked next. A preface to a question that announces its content can soften the harshness or abruptness of the question itself. Direct prefatory statements help make an interview more conversational and easily flowing. The transcriptions below show two interview sequences, one without prefatory statements and the other with prefatory statements.

• Question without preface: How have you changed as a result of the program?

• Question with preface: Now, let me ask you to think about any changes you see in yourself as a result of participating in this program. (Pause). How, if at all, have you been changed by your experiences in this program?

The attention-getting preface goes beyond just announcing the next question to making a comment about the question. The comment may concern the importance of the question, the difficulty of the question, the openness of the question, or any other characteristic of the question that would help set the stage. Consider these examples:

• This next question is particularly important to the program staff. How do you think the program could be improved?

• This next question is purposefully vague so that you can respond in any way that makes sense to you. What difference has this program made to the larger community?

SIDEBAR

CONTEXTUALIZING A QUESTION MAKES A DIFFERENCE

How you introduce a question can have a significant impact on how interviewees respond. Kim Manturuk, Senior Research Associate at the University of North Carolina Center for Community Capital, interviewed low-income people about whether they had enough food to eat. Manturuk (2013) found that asking the question straight out could be offensive.

We added an introduction along the lines of “In these difficult economic times, more people are finding it difficult to always have the kinds of foods they like.” . . . We found that, by setting it up so that the cause of food insecurity was the economy (and not an individual failing), people seemed more comfortable answering. (p. 1)

• This next question may be particularly difficult to answer with certainty, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it. In thinking about how you’ve changed during the past year, how much has this program caused those changes compared with other influences on your life at this time?

• This next question is aimed directly at getting your unique perspective. What’s it like to be a participant in this program?

• As you may know, this next issue has been both controversial and worrisome. What kinds of staff are needed to run a program like this?

The common element in each of these examples is that some prefatory comment is made about the question to alert the interviewee to the nature of the question. The attention-getting format communicates that the question about to be asked has some unique quality that makes it particularly worthy of being answered.

Making statements about the questions being asked is a way for the interviewer to engage in some conversation during the interview without commenting judgmentally on the answers being provided by the interviewee. What is said concerns the questions and not the respondent’s answers. In this fashion, the interview can be made more interesting and interactive. However, all of these formats must be used selectively and strategically. Constant repetition of the same format or mechanical use of a particular approach will make the interview more awkward rather than less so. Exhibit 7.13 summarizes the pacing and transition formats we’ve just discussed.

EXHIBIT 7.13 Summary of Pacing and Transition Formats

Probes and Follow-Up Questions

Probes are used to deepen the response to a question, increase the richness and depth of responses, and give cues to the interviewee about the level of response that is desired. The word probe is usually best avoided in interviews—a little too proctological. The expression “Let me probe that further” can sound as if you’re conducting an investigation of something illicit or illegal. Quite simply, a probe is a follow-up question used to go deeper into the interviewee’s responses. As such, probes should be conversational, offered in a natural style and voice, and used to follow up initial responses.

One natural set of conversational probes consists of detail-oriented questions. These are the basic questions that fill in the blank spaces of a response.

When did that happen?

Who else was involved?

Where were you during that time?

What was your involvement in that situation?

How did that come about?

Where did that happen?

These detail-oriented probes are the basic “who,” “where,” “what,” “when,” and “how” questions that are used to obtain a complete and detailed picture of some activity or experience.

©2002 Michael Quinn Patton and Michael Cochran

At other times, an interviewer may want to keep a respondent talking about a subject by using elaboration probes. The best cue to encourage continued talking is nonverbal—gently nodding your head as positive reinforcement. However, overenthusiastic head nodding may be perceived as endorsement of the content of a response or as wanting the person to stop talking because the interviewer has already understood what the respondent has to say. Gentle and strategic head nodding is aimed at communicating that you are listening and want to go on listening.

The verbal corollary of head nodding is the quiet “uh-huh.” A combination may be necessary; when the respondent seems about to stop talking and the interviewer would like to encourage more comment, a combined “uh-huh” with a gentle rocking of the whole upper body can communicate interest in having the interviewee elaborate.

Elaboration probes also have direct verbal forms:

• Would you elaborate on that?

• That’s helpful. I’d appreciate a bit more detail.

• I’m beginning to get the picture. (The implication is that I don’t have the full picture yet, so please keep talking.)

If something has been said that is ambiguous or an apparent non sequitur, a clarification probe may be useful. Clarification probes tell the interviewee that you need more information, a restatement of the answer, or more context.

You said the program is a “success.” What do you mean by “success”? I’m not sure I understand what you meant by that. Would you elaborate, please?

I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. I think it would help me if you could say some more about that.

A clarification probe should be used naturally and gently. It is best for the interviewer to convey the notion that the failure to understand is the fault of the interviewer and not a failure of the person being interviewed. The interviewer does not want to make the respondent feel inarticulate, stupid,

or muddled. After one or two attempts at achieving clarification, it is usually best to leave the topic that is causing confusion and move on to other questions, perhaps returning to that topic at a later point.

Another kind of clarifying follow-up question is the contrast probe (McCracken, 1988, p. 35). The purpose of a contrast probe is to “give respondents something to push off against” by asking, “How does x compare with y?” This is used to help define the boundaries of a response. How does this experience/feeling/action/term compare with some other experience/feeling/action/term?

A major characteristic that separates probes from general interview questions is that probes are seldom written out in an interview. Probing is a skill that comes from knowing what to look for in the interview, listening carefully to what is said and what is not said, and being sensitive to the feedback needs of the person being interviewed. Probes are always a combination of verbal and nonverbal cues. Silence at the end of a response can indicate as effectively as anything else that the interviewer would like the person to continue. Probes are used to communicate what the interviewer wants. More detail? Elaboration? Clarity?

SIDEBAR

ENTERING INTO THE WORLDS OF OTHERS THROUGH INTERVIEWING IN THE FIELD

In Far From the Tree, Andrew Solomon (2012) reports his inquiry into family experiences of deafness, dwarfism, autism, schizophrenia, disability, prodigies, transgender, crime, and children born of rape. Over 10 years, he interviewed more than 300 families. He reflects,

I had to learn a great deal to be able to hear these men and women and children. On my first day at my first dwarf convention, I went over to help an adolescent girl who was sobbing. “This is what I look like,” she blurted between gasps, and it seemed she was half laughing. “These people look like me.” Her mother, who was standing nearby, said, “You don’t know what this means to my daughter. But it also means a lot to me, to meet these other parents who will know what I’m talking about.” She assumed I, too, must be a parent of a child with dwarfism; when she learned that I was not, she chuckled, “For a few days, now, you can be the freakish one” (p. 41).

Follow-Up Questions: Listening for Markers

Follow-up questions pick up on cues offered by the interviewee. While probes are used to get at information the interviewer knows is important, follow-up questions are more exploratory. The interviewee says something almost in passing, maybe as an afterthought or a side comment, and you note that there may be something there worth following up on. Weiss (1994) calls these “markers.”

I define a marker as a passing reference made by a respondent to an important event or feeling state. . . . Because markers occur in the course of talking about something else, you may have to remember them and then return to them when you can, saying, “A few minutes ago you mentioned . . . .” But it is a good idea to pick up a marker as soon as you conveniently can if the material it hints at could in any way be relevant for your study. Letting the marker go will demonstrate to the respondent that the area is not of importance for you. It can also demonstrate that you are only interested in answers to your questions, not in the respondent’s full experience. (p. 77)

In interviewing participants in the wilderness-based leadership program, one section asked about any concerns leading up to participation. In the midst of talking about having diligently followed the suggested training routine (hiking at least a half-hour every day leading up to the program), a participant mentioned that she knew a friend whose boyfriend had died in a climbing accident on a wilderness trip; then, she went on talking about her own preparation. When she had finished describing how she had prepared for the program, I returned to her comment about the friend’s boyfriend. Quite unexpectedly, pursuing this casual offhand comment (marker) opened up strong feelings, not about possible injuries or death but about the possibility of forming romantic relationships on the 10-day wilderness experiences. It turned out to mark a decisive shift in the interview into a series of important and revealing interpersonal issues that provided a crucial context for understanding her subsequent program experiences.

Probes and follow-up questions, then, provide guidance to the person interviewed. They also provide the interviewer with a way to facilitate the flow of the interview, a subject we now go to.

Process Feedback During the Interview

Previous sections have emphasized the importance of thoughtful wording so that interview questions are clear, understandable, and answerable. Skillful question formulation and probing concern the content of the interview. This section emphasizes feedback about how the interview process is going.

A good interview feels like a connection has been established in which communication is flowing two ways. Qualitative interviews differ from interrogations or detective-style investigations. The qualitative interviewer has a responsibility to communicate clearly what information is desired and why that information is important, and to let the interviewee know how the interview is progressing.

An interview is an interaction in which an interchange occurs and a temporary interdependence is created. The interviewer provides stimuli to generate a reaction. That reaction from the interviewee, however, is also a stimulus to which the interviewer responds. You, as the interviewer, must maintain awareness of how the interview is flowing, how the interviewee is reacting to questions, and what kinds of feedback are appropriate and helpful to maintain the flow of communication.

Support and Recognition Responses

A common mistake among novices is failing to provide reinforcement and feedback. This means letting the interviewee know from time to time that the purpose of the interview is being fulfilled. Words of thanks, support, and even praise will help make the interviewee feel that the interview process is worthwhile and support ongoing rapport. Here are some examples:

• Your comments about program weaknesses are particularly helpful, I think, because identification of the kind of weaknesses you describe can really help in considering possible changes in the program.

• It’s really helpful to get such a clear statement of what it feels like to be an “outsider” as you’ve called yourself. Your reflections are just the kind of thing we’re trying to get at.

• We’re about halfway through the interview now, and from my point of view, it’s going very well. You’ve been telling me some really important things. How’s it going for you?

• I really appreciate your willingness to express your feelings about that. You’re helping me understand—and that’s exactly why I wanted to interview you.

You can get clues about what kind of reinforcement is appropriate by watching the interviewee. When verbal and nonverbal behaviors indicate that someone is really struggling with a question, going mentally deep within, working hard trying to form an answer, after the response it can be helpful to say something like the following: “I know that was a difficult question and I really appreciate your working with it because what you said was very meaningful and came out very clearly. Thank you.”

At other times, you may perceive that only a surface or shallow answer has been provided. It may then be appropriate to say something like the following:

I don’t want to let that question go by without asking you to think about it just a little bit more, because I feel you’ve really given some important detail and insights on the other questions and I’d like to get more of your reflections about this question.

In essence, the interviewer, through feedback, is “training” the interviewee to provide high- quality and relevant responses.

Maintaining Control and Enhancing the Quality of Responses

Time is precious in an interview. Long-winded responses, irrelevant remarks, and digressions reduce the amount of time available to focus on critical questions. These problems exacerbate when the interviewer fails to maintain a reasonable degree of control over the process. Control is facilitated by (a) knowing what you want to find out, (b) asking focused questions to get relevant answers, (c) listening attentively to assess the quality and relevance of responses, and (d) giving appropriate verbal and nonverbal feedback to the person being interviewed.

Knowing what you want to find out means being able to recognize and distinguish relevant from irrelevant responses. It is not enough just to ask the right questions. You, the interviewer, must listen carefully to make sure that the responses you receive provide meaningful answers to the questions you ask. Consider the following exchange:

SIDEBAR

CREATIVE BUMBLING

If doing nothing can produce a useful reaction, so can the appearance of being dumb. You can develop a distinct advantage by waxing slow of wit. Evidently, you need help. Who is there to help you but the person who is answering your questions? The result is the opposite of the total shutdown that might have occurred if you had come on glib and omniscient. If you don’t seem to get something, the subject will probably help you get it. If you are listening to speech and at the same time envisioning it in print, you can ask your question again, and again, until the repeated reply will be clear in print. Who is going to care if you seem dumber than a cardboard box? Reporters call that creative bumbling.

—John McPhee (2014, p. 50)

Journalist

Q: What happens in a typical interviewer training session that you lead?

A: I try to be sensitive to where each person is at with interviewing. I try to make sure that I am able to touch base with each person so that I can find out how she or he is responding to the training, to get some notion of how each person is doing.

Q: How do you begin a session, a training session?

A: I believe it’s important to begin with enthusiasm, to generate some excitement about interviewing.

Earlier in this chapter, I discussed the importance of distinguishing different kinds of questions and answers: behavior, opinion, knowledge, feelings (see Exhibit 7.7, p. 445). In the interaction above, the interviewer is asking descriptive, behavioral questions. The responses, however, are about beliefs and hopes. The answers do not actually describe what happened. Rather, they describe what the interviewee thinks ought to happen (opinions). Since the interviewer wants behavioral data, it is necessary to first recognize that the responses are not providing the kind of data desired, and then to ask appropriate follow-up questions that will lead to behavioral responses, something like this:

Interviewer: Okay, you try to establish contact with each person and generate enthusiasm at the beginning. What would help me now is to have you actually take me into a training session. Describe for me what the room looks like, where the trainees are, where you are, and tell me what I would see and hear if I were right there in that session. What would I see you doing? What would I hear you saying? What would I see the trainees doing? What would I hear the trainees saying? Take me into a session so that I can actually experience it, if you will.

It is the interviewer’s responsibility to work with the person being interviewed to facilitate the desired kind of responses. At times, it may be necessary to give very direct feedback about the difference between the response given and what is desired.

Interviewer: I understand what you try to do during a training session—what you hope to accomplish and stimulate. Now I’d like you to describe to me what you actually do, not what you expect, but what I would actually see happening if I were present at the session.

It’s not enough to simply ask a well-formed and carefully focused initial question. Neither is it enough to have a well-planned interview with appropriate basic questions. The interviewer must listen actively and carefully to responses to make sure that the interview is working. I’ve seen many well-written interviews that have resulted in largely useless data because the interviewer did not listen carefully and thus did not recognize that the responses were not providing the information needed. The first responsibility, then, in facilitating the interview interaction is knowing what kind of data you are looking for and managing the interview so as to get quality responses.

Verbal and Nonverbal Feedback

Giving appropriate feedback to the interviewee is essential in pacing an interview and maintaining control of the interview process. Head nodding, taking notes, “uh-huhs,” and silent probes (remaining quiet when a person stops talking to let him or her know that you’re waiting for more) are all signals to the person being interviewed that the responses are on the right track. These techniques encourage greater depth in responses, but you also need skill and techniques to stop a highly verbal respondent who gets off the track. The first step in stopping the long-winded respondent is to cease giving the usual cues that encourage talking: stop nodding the head, interject a new question as soon as the respondent pauses for breath, stop taking notes, or call attention to the fact that you’ve stopped taking notes by flipping the page of the writing pad and sitting back, waiting. When these nonverbal cues don’t work, you simply have to interrupt the long-winded respondent.

SIDEBAR

SKILLFUL AND EFFECTIVE INTERVIEWING

Anyone who uses interviewing in their evaluation work—and, let’s face it, most of us do—learns over time the importance of following a fruitful line of questioning:

Focused but not narrow; flexible but not directionless.

We need to make sure that our interview (1) goes after what’s most important; (2) doesn’t go off on tangents; (3) keeps the interviewee engaged; and (4) doesn’t get prematurely evaluative by throwing in conclusions while still gathering the evidence.

—E. Jane Davidson and Patricia Rogers

Genuine Evaluation Blog (January 4, 2013)

Let me stop you here for a moment. I want to make sure I fully understand something you said earlier. (Then ask a question aimed at getting the response more targeted.)

or

Let me ask you to stop for a moment because some of what you’re talking about now I want to get later in the interview. First, I need to find out from you. . . .

Interviewers are sometimes concerned that it is impolite to interrupt an interviewee. It certainly can be awkward, but when done with respect and sensitivity, the interruption can actually help the interview. It is both patronizing and disrespectful to let the respondent run on when no attention is being paid to what is said. It is respectful of both the person being interviewed and the interviewer to make good use of the short time available to talk. It is the responsibility of the interviewer to help the interviewee understand what kind of information is being requested and to establish a framework and context that makes it possible to collect the right kind of information.

Reiterating the Purpose of the Interview as a Basis for Focus and Feedback

Helping the interviewee understand the purpose of the overall interview and the relationship of particular questions to that overall purpose are important pieces of information that go beyond simply asking questions. While the reason for asking a particular question may be absolutely clear to the interviewer, don’t assume it’s clear to the respondent. You communicate respect for the persons being interviewed by giving them the courtesy of explaining why the questions are being asked. Understanding the purpose of a question will increase the motivation of the interviewee to respond openly and in detail.

The overall purpose of the interview is conveyed in an opening statement. Specific questions within the interview should have a connection to that overall purpose. (We’ll deal later with issues of informed consent and protection of human subjects in relation to opening statements of purpose. The focus here is on communicating purpose to improve responses. Later, we’ll review the ethical issues related to informing interviewees about the study’s purpose.) While the opening statement at the beginning of an interview provides an overview about the purpose of the interview, it will still be appropriate and important to explain the purpose of particular questions at strategic points throughout the interview. Here are two examples from evaluation interviews.

• This next set of questions is about the program staff. The staff has told us that they don’t really get a chance to find out how people in the program feel about what they do, so this part of the interview is aimed at giving them some direct feedback. But as we agreed at the beginning, the staff won’t know who said what. Your responses will remain confidential.

• This next set of questions asks about your background and experiences before you entered this program. The purpose of these questions is to help us find out how people with varying backgrounds have reacted to the program.

The One-Shot Question

Informal, conversational interviewing typically takes place as a natural part of fieldwork. It is opportunistic and often unscheduled. A chance arises to talk with someone when the interview is under way. More structured and scheduled interviewing takes place by way of formal appointments and site visits. Yet the best-laid plans for scheduled interviews can go awry. You arrive at the appointed time and place only to find that the person to be interviewed is unwilling to cooperate or needs to run off to take care of some unexpected problem. When faced with such a situation, it is helpful to have a single, one-shot question in mind to salvage at least something. This one-shot question is the one you ask if you are only going to get a few minutes with the interviewee.

For an agricultural extension needs assessment, I was interviewing farmers in rural Minnesota. The farmers in the area were economically distressed, and many of them felt alienated from politicians and professionals. I arrived at a farm for a scheduled interview, but the farmer refused to cooperate. At first, he refused to even come out of the barn to call off the dogs surrounding my truck. Finally, he appeared and said,

I don’t want to talk to you tonight. I know I said I would, but the wife and I had a tiff and I’m tired. I’ve always helped with your government surveys. I fill out all the forms the government sends. But I’m tired of it. No more. I don’t want to talk.

I had driven a long way to get this interview. The fieldwork was tightly scheduled, and I knew that I would not get another shot at this farmer, even if he later had a change of heart. And I didn’t figure it would help much to explain that I wasn’t from the government. Instead, to try and salvage the situation, I took my one-shot question, a question stimulated by his demeanor and overt hostility.

I’m sorry I caught you at a bad time. But as long as I’m here, let me ask you just one quick question; then, I’ll be on my way. Is there anything you want to tell the bastards in Saint Paul?

He hesitated for just a moment, grinned, and then launched into a tirade that turned into a full, two-hour interview. I never got out of the truck, but I was able to cover the entire interview (though without ever referring to or taking out the written interview schedule). At the end of this conversational interview, which had fully satisfied my data collection needs, he said, “Well, I’ve enjoyed talkin’ with you, and I’m sorry about refusin’ to fill out your form. I just don’t want to do a survey tonight.”

I told him I understood and asked him if I could use what he had told me as long as he wasn’t identified. He readily agreed, having already signed the consent form when we set up the appointment. I thanked him for the conversation. My scheduled, structured interview had become an informal, conversational interview developed from a last ditch, one-shot question.

Here’s a different example. The story is told of a young ethnographer studying a village that had previously been categorized in anthropological studies as aggressive and war oriented. He sat outside the school at the end of the day and asked each boy who came out his one-shot, stupid, European question: “What do men do?” The responses he obtained overwhelmingly referred to farming and fishing and almost none to warfare. In one hour, he had a totally different view of the society from that portrayed by previous researchers.

The Final or Closing Question

In the spirit of open-ended interviewing, it’s important in qualitative interviewing to provide an opportunity for the interviewee to have the final say: “That covers the things I wanted to ask. Anything you care to add?” I’ve gotten some of my richest data from this question with interviewees taking me in directions that had never occurred to me to pursue.

In a routine evaluation of an adult literacy program, we were focused on what learning to read meant to the participants. At the end of the interview, I asked, “What should I have asked you that I didn’t think to ask?” Without hesitation one young Hispanic woman replied, “About sexual harassment.” The program had a major problem that the evaluation ended up exposing.

Experienced qualitative methodologist David Morgan (2012) offers this advice about bringing closure to an interview:

I think there are two basic points [for] closure: first [is] to avoid ending with the sense “OK, I’ve got my data, so long.” The second is to give the participant[s] a chance to express their thoughts in their own voice.

The question I use most often is: “Out of all the things we’ve talked about today—or maybe some topics we’ve missed—what should I pay most attention to? What should I think about when I read your interview?” (p. 1)

It can also be helpful to leave interviewees with a way to contact you in case they want to add something that they forgot to mention, or clarify some point.

This way, you don’t “close the door,” but leave it ajar—and it is up to them whether they want to open it again. I think it also gives the participants some power in the process—to decide when the process is over, rather than the researcher doing so. (Gustason, 2012, p. 1)

Beyond Technique

We’ve been looking with some care at different kinds of questions in an effort to polish interviewing technique and increase question precision. Below I’ll offer suggestions about the mechanics of managing data collection—things like recording the data and taking notes. Before moving on, though, it may be helpful to step back and remember the larger purpose of qualitative inquiry so that we don’t become overly technique oriented. You’re trying to understand a person’s world and worldview. That’s why you ask focused questions in a sensitive manner. You’re hoping to elicit relevant answers that are meaningful and useful in understanding the interviewee’s perspective. That’s basically what interviewing is all about.

SIDEBAR

HOW MUCH TECHNIQUE?

Sociologist Peter Berger is said to have told his students, “In science as in love, a preoccupation with technique may lead to impotence.”

To which Halcolm adds, “In love as in science, ignoring technique reduces the likelihood of attaining the desired results. The path of wisdom joins that of effectiveness somewhere between the outer boundaries of ignoring technique and being preoccupied with it.”

This chapter has offered ideas about how to do quality interviews, but ultimately, no recipe can prescribe the single right way of interviewing. No single correct format exists that is appropriate for all situations, and no particular way of wording questions will always work. The specific interview situation, the needs of the interviewee, and the personal style of the interviewer all come together to create a unique situation for each interview. Therein lies the challenge of qualitative interviewing.

Maintaining focus on gathering information that is useful, relevant, and appropriate requires concentration, practice, and the ability to separate that which is foolish from that which is important. In his great novel Don Quixote, Cervantes (1964) describes a scene in which his uneducated sidekick Sancho is rebuked by the knight errant Don Quixote for trying to impress his cousin by repeating deeply philosophical questions and answers that he has heard from others, all the while trying to make the cousin think that these were Sancho’s own insights.

“That question and answer,” said Don Quixote, “are not yours, Sancho. You have heard them from someone else.”

“Whist, sir,” answered Sancho, “if I start questioning and answering, I shan’t be done till tomorrow morning. Yes, for if it’s just a matter of asking idiotic questions and giving silly replies, I needn’t go begging help from the neighbors.”

“You have said more than you know, Sancho,” said Don Quixote, “for there are some people who tire themselves out learning and proving things that, once learned and proved, don’t matter a straw as far as the mind or memory is concerned.” (p. 682)

Regardless of which interview strategy is used—the informal conversational interview, the interview guide approach, or a standardized open-ended interview—the wording of questions will affect the nature and quality of the responses received. So will careful management of the interview process. Constant attention to both content and process, with both informed by the purpose of the interview, will reduce the extent to which, in Cervantes’s words, researchers and evaluators “tire themselves out learning and proving things that, once learned and proved, don’t matter a straw as far as the mind or memory is concerned.”

Mechanics of Gathering Interview Data Recording the Data

No matter what style of interviewing you use and no matter how carefully you word questions, it all comes to naught if you fail to capture the actual words of the person being interviewed. The raw data of interviews are the actual quotations spoken by interviewees. Nothing can substitute for these data—the actual things said by real people. That’s the prize sought by the qualitative inquirer.

Data interpretation and analysis involve making sense out of what people have said, looking for patterns, putting together what is said in one place with what is said in another place, and integrating what different people have said. These processes occur primarily during the analysis phase, after the data have been collected. During the interviewing process itself—that is, during the data collection phase—the purpose of each interview is to record as fully and fairly as possible that particular interviewee’s perspective. Some method for recording the verbatim responses of people being interviewed is therefore essential.

As a good hammer is essential to fine carpentry, a good recorder is indispensable to fine fieldwork. Recorders do not “tune out” conversations, change what has been said because of interpretation (either conscious or unconscious), or record words more slowly than they are spoken. (Recorders, do, however, malfunction.) Obviously a researcher doing conversational interviews as part of covert fieldwork does not walk around with a recorder. However, most interviews are arranged in such a way that recorders are appropriate if properly explained to the interviewee:

I’d like to record what you say so I don’t miss any of it. I don’t want to take the chance of relying on my notes and maybe missing something that you say or inadvertently changing your words somehow. So, if you don’t mind, I’d very much like to use the recorder. If at any time during the interview you would like to stop the recorder, juts let me know.

When it is not possible to use a recorder because of some sensitive situation, interviewee request, or recorder malfunction, notes must become much more thorough and comprehensive. It becomes critical to gather actual quotations. When the interviewee has said something that seems particularly important or insightful, it may be necessary to say,

I’m afraid I need to stop you at this point so that I can get down exactly what you said because I don’t want to lose that particular quote. Let me read back to you what I have and make sure it is exactly what you said.

This point emphasizes again the importance of capturing what people say in their own words.

But such verbatim note taking has become the exception now that most people are familiar and comfortable with recorders. More than just increasing the accuracy of data collection, using a recorder permits the interviewer to be more attentive to the interviewee. If you tried to write down every word said, you’d have a difficult time responding appropriately to interviewee needs and cues. Ironically, verbatim note taking can interfere with listening attentively. The interviewer can get so focused on note taking that the person speaking gets only secondary attention. Every interview is also an observation, and having one’s eyes fixed on a note pad is hardly conducive to careful observation. In short, the interactive nature of in-depth interviewing can be seriously affected by an attempt to take verbatim notes. Lofland (1971) has made this point forcefully:

One’s full attention must be focused upon the interviewee. One must be thinking about probing for further explication or clarification of what he is now saying; formulating probes linking up current talk with what he has already said; thinking ahead to putting in a new question that has now arisen and was not taken account of in the standing guide (plus making a note at that moment so one will not forget the question); and attending to the interviewee in a manner that communicates to him that you are indeed listening. All of this is hard enough simply in itself. Add to that the problem of writing it down—even if one takes shorthand in an expert fashion—and one can see that the process of note-taking in the interview decreases one’s interviewing capacity. Therefore, if conceivably possible, record; then one can interview. (p. 89)

SIDEBAR

ADVICE FROM AN EXPERIENCED JOURNALIST ON RECORDING AN INTERVIEW

Whatever you do, don’t rely on memory. Don’t even imagine that you will be able to remember verbatim in the evening what people said during the day. And don’t squirrel notes in a bathroom—that is, runoff to the john and write surreptitiously what someone said back there with the cocktails. From the start, make clear what you are doing and who will publish what you write. Display your notebook as if it were a fishing license. While the interview continues, the notebook may serve other purposes, surpassing the talents of a taperecorder. As you scribble away, the interviewee is, of course, watching you. Now, unaccountably, you slowdown, and even stop writing, while the interviewee goes on talking. The interviewee becomes nervous, tries harder, and spills out the secrets of a secret life, or may be just a clearer and more quotable version of what was said before. Conversely, if the interviewee is saying nothing of interest, you can pretend to be writing, just to keep the enterprise moving forward.

—John McPhee (2014, p. 50)

Distinguished journalist

So if verbatim note taking is neither desirable nor really possible, what kinds of notes are taken during a recorded interview?

Taking Notes During Interviews

The use of the recorder does not eliminate the need for taking notes, but you take strategic and focused notes, not verbatim notes. Notes can serve at least four purposes:

1. Notes taken during the interview can help the interviewer formulate new questions as the interview moves along, particularly where it may be appropriate to check out something said earlier.

2. Looking over field notes before transcripts are done helps make sure the inquiry is unfolding in the hoped-for direction and can stimulate early insights that may be relevant to pursue in subsequent interviews while still in the field—the emergent nature of qualitative inquiry.

3. Taking notes will facilitate later analysis, including locating important quotations, from the recording.

4. Notes are a backup in the event the recorder has malfunctioned or, as I’ve had happen, a recording is erased inadvertently during transcription.

When a recorder is being used during the interview, notes will consist primarily of key phrases, lists of major points made by the respondent, and key terms or words shown in quotation marks that capture the interviewee’s own language. It is useful to develop some system of abbreviations and informal shorthand to facilitate taking notes, for example, in an interview on leadership writing “L” instead of the full word. Some important conventions along this line include (a) using quotation marks only to indicate full and actual quotations; (b) developing some mechanism for indicating interpretations, thoughts, or ideas that may come to mind during the interview, for example, the use of brackets to set off one’s own ideas from those of the interviewee; and (c) keeping track of questions asked as well as answers received. Questions provide the context for interpreting answers.

Note taking serves functions beyond the obvious one of taking notes. Note taking helps pace the interview by providing nonverbal cues about what’s important, providing feedback to the interviewee about what kinds of things are especially “noteworthy”—literally. Conversely, the failure to take notes may indicate to the respondent that nothing of particular importance is being said. And don’t start making out your work “to do” list while someone is droning on endlessly. The person might think that you’re taking notes. Enchanted, he or she will keep on talking. The point is that taking notes affects the interview process. Be mindful of those effects.

After the Interview: Quality Control

The period after an interview or observation is critical to the rigor and validity of qualitative inquiry. This is a time for guaranteeing the quality of the data.

Immediately after a recorded interview, check the recording to make sure it worked. If, for some reason, a malfunction occurred, you should immediately make extensive notes of everything that you can remember. Even if the recorder functioned properly, you should go over the interview notes to make certain that they make sense and to uncover areas of ambiguity or uncertainty. If you find things that don’t quite make sense, as soon possible check back with the interviewee for clarification. This can often be done over the telephone. In my experience, people who are interviewed appreciate such a follow-up because it indicates the seriousness with which the interviewer is taking their responses. Guessing the meaning of a response is unacceptable; if there is no way of following up the comments with the respondent, then those areas of vagueness and uncertainty simply become missing data.

The immediate postinterview review is a time to record details about the setting and your observations about the interview. Where did the interview occur? Under what conditions? How did

the interviewee react to questions? How well do you think you did asking questions? How was the rapport?

Answers to these questions establish a context for interpreting and making sense of the interview later. Reflect on the quality of information received. To what extent did you find out what you really wanted to find out in the interview? Note weaknesses and problems: poorly worded questions, wrong topics, poor rapport. Reflect on these issues, and make notes on the interview process while the experience is still fresh in your mind. These process notes will inform the methodological section of your research report, evaluation, or dissertation.

Reflection as Qualitative Data

This period after an interview or observation is a critical time for reflection and elaboration. It is a time of quality control to guarantee that the data obtained will be useful. This kind of postinterview ritual requires discipline. Interviewing and observing can be exhausting, so much so that it is easy to forego this time of reflection and elaboration, put it off, or neglect it altogether. To do so is to seriously undermine the rigor of qualitative inquiry. Interviews and observations should be scheduled so that sufficient time is available for data clarification, elaboration, and evaluation afterward. Where a team is working together, the whole team needs to meet regularly to share observations and debrief together. This is the beginning of analysis, because, while the situation and data are fresh, insights can emerge that might otherwise be lost. Ideas and interpretations that emerge following an interview or observation should be written down and clearly marked as emergent, field-based insights to be further reviewed later.

I think about the time after an interview as a period for postpartum reflection, a time to consider what has been revealed and what has been birthed. In eighteenth-century Europe, the quaint phrase “in an interesting condition” became the genteel way of referring to an expectant mother in “polite company.” The coming together of an interviewer and an interviewee makes for “an interesting condition.” The interviewer is certainly expectant, as may be the interviewee. What emerged? What was created? Did it go okay? Is some form of triage necessary? As soon as a child is born, a few basic observations are made, and tests are performed to make sure that everything is alright. That’s what you’re doing right after an interview—making sure that everything came out okay.

Such an analogy may be a stretch for thinking about a postinterview debrief, but interviews are precious to those who hope to turn them into dissertations, contributions to knowledge, and evaluation findings. It’s worth managing the interview process to allow time to make observations about, reflect on, and learn from each interview.

Up to this point, we’ve been focusing on techniques to enhance the quality of the standard one- on-one interview. We turn now to some important variations in interviewing and specialized approaches. We begin with interviewing groups.

MODULE

61 Interviewing Groups and Cross-Cultural Interviewing

Human beings are social creatures. We are social not just in the trivial sense that we like company, and not just in the obvious sense that we each depend on others. We are social in a more elemental way: simply to exist as a normal human being requires interaction with other people.

—Atul Gawande Surgeon and journalist

Group interviews take a variety of forms and serve diverse purposes. Focus groups, interviews with naturally occurring groups, family interviews, and documenting consciousness-raising groups offer a variety of opportunities to engage in qualitative inquiry. What these group interviewing approaches have in common is recognition that, as social beings, qualitative inquiry with groups makes data collection a social experience. That social experience is presumed to increase the meaningfulness and validity of findings because our perspectives are formed and sustained in social groups. Our interactions with each other are how we come to more deeply understand our own views, test our knowledge, get in touch with our feelings, and make sense of our behaviors.

The purpose of the inquiry drives the use of group interviews. We may use groups to get diverse perspectives or to facilitate consensus. We may interview naturally occurring groups to compare and contrast their activities and views. We may conduct group interviews in certain cross-cultural settings because people are most comfortable in groups and are not accustomed to one-on-one inquiries. In the sections that follow, we’ll examine and compare several group-interviewing approaches. Exhibit 7.14 provides an overview of 12 varieties of group interviews with different purposes and priorities.

Focus Group Interviews

A focus group is an interview with a small group of people on a specific topic. Groups are typically of 6 to 10 people with similar backgrounds who participate in the interview for one to two hours. In a given study, a series of different focus groups will be conducted to get a variety of perspectives and increase confidence in whatever patterns emerge. Focus group interviewing was developed in recognition that many consumer decisions are made in a social context, often growing out of discussions with other people. Thus, market researchers began using focus groups in the 1950s as a way of stimulating the consumer group process of decision making to gather more accurate information about consumer product preferences (Higginbotham & Cox, 1979). On the academic side, distinguished sociologist Robert K. Merton pioneered the seminal work on research-oriented focus group interviews in 1956: The Focused Interview (Merton, Riske, & Kendall).

The focus group interview is, first and foremost, an interview. It is not a problem-solving session. It is not a decision-making group. It is not primarily a discussion, though direct interactions among participants often occur. It is an interview. The twist is that, unlike a series of

one-on-one interviews, in a focus group, participants get to hear each other’s responses and to make additional comments beyond their own original responses as they hear what other people have to say. However, participants need not agree with each other or reach any kind of consensus. Nor is it necessary for people to disagree. The object is to get high-quality data in a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of the views of others.

Focus group experts Richard Krueger and Mary Anne Casey (2008) explain that a focused interview should be carefully planned to create a “permissive, nonthreatening environment,” a setting that “encourages participants to share perceptions and points of view without pressuring participants to vote or reach consensus” (p. 4). A focus group is conducted in a way that is comfortable and even enjoyable for participants as they share their ideas and perceptions. Group members influence each other by responding to the ideas and comments they hear.

The term focus group moderator may be used instead of interviewer because

this term [moderator] highlights a specific function of the interviewer—that of moderating or guiding the discussion. The term interviewer tends to convey a more limited impression of two-way communication between an interviewer and an interviewee. By contrast, the focus group affords the opportunity for multiple interactions not only between the interviewer and respondent but among all participants in the group. The focus group is not a collection of simultaneous individual interviews but rather a group discussion where the conversation flows because of the nurturing of the moderator. (Krueger, 1994, p. 100)

EXHIBIT 7.14 Twelve Varieties of Group Interviews

The combination of moderating and interviewing is sufficiently complex that Krueger recommends that teams of two conduct the groups so that one person can focus on facilitating the group while the other takes detailed notes and deals with mechanics like recorders, cameras, and any special needs that arise, for example, someone needing to leave early or becoming

overwrought. Even when the interview is recorded, good notes help in sorting out who said what when the recording is transcribed.

SIDEBAR

GIVING VOICE TO MARGINALIZED PEOPLE THROUGH FOCUS GROUPS

By bringing together people who share a similar background, focus groups create the opportunity for participants to engage in meaningful conversations about the topics that researchers wish to understand. This ability to learn about participants’ perspectives by listening to their conversations makes focus groups especially useful for hearing from groups whose voices are often marginalized within the larger society. Focus groups are thus widely used in studies of ethnic and cultural minority groups, along with studies of sexuality and substance use. . . .

For evaluation research, focus groups are used in both preliminary phases, such as needs assessment or program development, and in follow-up or summative evaluation, to hear about the participants’ experiences with a program. (Morgan, 2008a, p. 352)

SIDEBAR

THE QUESTIONING ROUTE AND GROUP INTERACTIONS

The series of questions used in a focused interview—the questioning route—looks deceptively simple. Typically, a focused interview will include about a dozen questions for a two-hour group. If you asked these questions in an individual interview, the respondent could probably tell you everything he or she could think of related to the questions in just a few minutes. But when these questions are asked in a group environment, the discussion can last for several hours. Part of the reason is in the nature of the questions and the cognitive processes of humans. As participants answer questions, their responses spark ideas from other participants. Comments provide mental cues that trigger memories or thoughts of other participants—cues that help explore the range of perceptions. (Krueger & Casey, 2008, p. 35)

©2002 Michael Quinn Patton and Michael Cochran

Postmodern Unfocused Group Interview

Strengths of Focus Groups

Focus group interviews have several advantages for qualitative inquiry.

• Focus groups offer cost effective data collection: In one hour, you can gather information from eight people instead of only one, significantly increasing sample size. “Focus group interviews are widely accepted within marketing research because they produce believable results at a reasonable cost” (Krueger, 1994, p. 8).

• Focus groups highlight diverse perspectives: Focus groups should be homogeneous in terms of background and not attitudes. Differences of opinion “lend ‘bite’ to focus group discussions. Provided that we are not cavalier about mixing together people who are known to have violently differing perspectives on emotive issues, a little bit of argument can go a long way towards teasing out what lies beneath ‘opinions’ and can allow both focus group facilitators and participants to clarify their own and others’ perspectives. Perhaps, in some contexts, this can even facilitate greater mutual understanding. In terms of generating discussion, a focus group consisting of people in agreement about everything would make for very dull conversation and data lacking in richness” (Barbour, 2007, p. 59).

• Interactions among participants enhance data quality: Participants tend to provide checks and balances on each other, which weeds out false or extreme views (Krueger & Casey, 2000, 2008). Moreover, how people talk about a topic is important, not just what they say about it. The researcher attends “not only the content of the conversation, but also what the conversation situation is like in terms of emotions, tensions, interruptions, conflicts and body language . . . ; how people tell and retell different narratives or how they draw on and reproduce discourses in interaction” (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 175).

• Silences and topics avoided are revealing: What is not said in focus groups and what precipitates periods of silence can generate fruitful insights.

• Analysis unfolds as the interview unfolds: The extent to which there is a relatively consistent, shared view or great diversity of views can be quickly assessed.

• Focus groups tend to be enjoyable to participants: They draw on our human tendencies as social animals to enjoy interacting with others.

Limitations of Focus Groups

Focus groups, like all forms of data collection, also have limitations.

• The number of questions that can be asked is greatly restricted in the group setting.

• The available response time for any particular individual is restrained to hear from everyone. A rule of thumb: With eight people and an hour for the group, plan to ask no more than 10 major questions.

• Facilitating and conducting a focus group interview requires considerable group process skill beyond simply asking questions. The moderator must manage the interview so that it’s not dominated by one or two people, and so that those participants who tend not to be highly verbal are able to share their views.

• Those who realize that their viewpoint is a minority perspective may not be inclined to speak up and risk negative reactions.

• Focus groups appear to work best when people in the group, though sharing similar backgrounds, are strangers to one another. The dynamics are quite different and more complex when participants have prior established relationships.

• Controversial and highly personal issues are poor topics for focus groups (Kaplowitz, 2000).

• Confidentiality cannot be assured in focus groups. Indeed, in market research, focus groups are often videotaped so that marketers can view them and see for themselves the emotional intensity of people’s responses.

• “The focus group is beneficial for identification of major themes but not so much for the micro- analysis of subtle differences” (Krueger, 1994, p. x).

• Compared with most qualitative fieldwork approaches, focus groups typically have the disadvantage of taking place outside the natural settings where social interactions normally occur (Madriz, 2000, p. 836).

SIDEBAR

LEARNING IN FOCUS GROUPS

Focus group participants sometimes engage in problem solving as they respond to questions. Sharing what they think and know, participants generate new knowledge as a group that can affect individual knowledge and beliefs, and even subsequent behavior. Expressing disagreement can also stimulate learning as participants challenge each other, defend their own views, and sometimes modify their viewpoints. Thus, while the quotations from focus groups constitute evaluation findings, the interactions and learnings in the group can constitute learning among the participants (Wiebeck & Dahlgren, 2007).

The Focus in Focus Groups

As these strengths and limitations suggest, the power of focus groups resides in their being focused. The focused questions typically seek reactions to something (a product, a program, an idea, or a shared experience) rather than exploring complex life issues in depth and detail. The groups are focused by being formed homogeneously. The facilitation is focused, keeping responses on target. Interactions among participants are focused, staying on topic. Use of time must be focused, because the time passes quickly. Despite some of the limitations introduced by the necessity of sharp focus, applications of focus groups are widespread and growing (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Krueger & Casey, 2000, 2008; Madriz, 2000; Morgan, 1988, 2008a).

Focus groups have entered into the repertoire of techniques for qualitative researchers and evaluators involved in participatory studies with coresearchers. For community research, collaborative action research, and participatory evaluations, local people who are not professional researchers are being successfully trained and supported to do focus groups (King & Stevahn, 2013; Krueger & King, 1997). Rossman and Rallis (1998) have done focus groups effectively with children in elementary schools.

Because the focus group “is a collectivistic rather than an individualistic research method,” focus groups have also emerged as a collaborative and empowering approach in feminist research (Madriz, 2000, p. 836). Sociologist and feminist researcher Esther Madriz explains,

Focus groups allow access to research participants who may find one-on-one, face-to-face interaction “scary” or “intimidating.” By creating multiple lines of communication, the group interview offers participants . . . a safe environment where they can share ideas, beliefs, and attitudes in the company of people from the same socioeconomic, ethnic, and gender backgrounds. . . .

For years, the voices of women of color have been silenced in most research projects. Focus groups may facilitate women of color “writing culture together” by exposing not only the layers of oppression that have suppressed these women’s expressions, but the forms of resistance that they use every day to deal with such oppressions. In this regard, I argue that focus groups can be an important element in the advancement of an agenda of social justice for women, because they can serve to expose and validate women’s everyday experiences of subjugation and their individual and collective survival and resistance strategies. (Madriz, 2000, pp. 835–836)

I experienced firsthand the potential of focus groups to provide safety in numbers for people in vulnerable situations. I conducted focus groups among low-income recipients of legal aid as one technique in an evaluation of services provided to people in a large public housing project. As the interview opened, the participants, who came from different sections of the project and did not know each other, were reserved and cautious about commenting on the problems they were experiencing. As one woman shared in vague terms a history of problems she had had in getting needed repairs, another woman jumped in and supported her saying, “I know exactly what you’re talking about and who you’re talking about. It’s really bad. Bad. Bad. Bad.” She then shared her story. Soon others were telling similar stories, often commenting that they had no idea so many other people were having the same kind of problems. Several also commented at the end of the interview that they would have been unlikely to share their stories with me in a one-on-one interview because they would have felt individually vulnerable, but they drew confidence and a sense of safety and camaraderie from being part of the interview group.

On the other hand, Kaplowitz (2000) studied whether sensitive topics were more or less likely to be discussed in focus groups versus individual interviews. Ninety-seven year-round residents from the Chelem Lagoon region in Yucatan, Mexico, participated in one of 12 focus groups or 19 individual in-depth interviews. A professional moderator used the same interview guide to get reactions to a shared mangrove ecosystem. The 31 sessions generated more than 500 pages of transcripts that were coded for the incidence of discussions of sensitive topics. The findings showed that the individual interviews were 18 times more likely to raise socially sensitive discussion topics than the focus groups. Additionally, the study found the two qualitative methods, focus groups and individual interviews, to be complementary to each other, each yielding somewhat different information.

Internet Focus Groups

Internet and social media platforms have created new opportunities for focus groups (Krueger & Casey, 2012; Lee & O’Brien, 2012). Walston and Lissitz (2000) compared the reactions of Internet-based versus face-to-face focus groups discussing academic dishonesty and found that the Internet environment appeared to reduce participants’ anxiety about what the moderator thought of them, making it easier for them to share embarrassing information.

Interviews With Existing Groups

Not all group interviews are of the focus group variety. During fieldwork, unstructured conversational interviews may occur in groups that are not at all focused. In evaluating a community leadership program, much of the most important information came from talking with groups of people informally during breaks from the formal training. During the fieldwork for the wilderness education program described extensively in the previous chapter, informal group interviews became a mainstay of data collection, sometimes with just two or three people, and sometimes in dinner groups as large as 10.

Parameswaran (2001) found important differences in the data she could gather in group versus individual interviews during her fieldwork in India. Moreover, she found that she had to do group interviews with the young women before she could interview them one-on-one. She was studying the reading of Western romance novels among female college students in India. She reports,

To my surprise, several young women did not seem happy or willing to spend time with me alone right away. When I requested the first group of women to meet me on an individual basis and asked if they could meet me during their breaks from classes, I was surprised and uncomfortable with the loud silence that ensued. . . .

When I faced similar questions from another group of women who also appeared to resist my appeals to meet with them alone, I realized that I had arrogantly encroached into their intimate, everyday rituals of friendship. . . . Knowing well that without collecting data from these possibly recalcitrant subjects, I had no project, I reluctantly changed my plans and agreed to accept their demands. I began talking to them in groups first, and gradually, more than 30 women agreed to meet me in individual sessions. Later, I discovered that they preferred to respond to me as a group first because they were wary about the kinds of questions I planned to ask about their sexuality and romance reading. The more public nature of group discussions meant that it was a safe space where I might hesitate to ask intrusive and personal questions. . . .

Group interviews in which women spoke about love, courtship, and heterosexual relations in Western romance fiction became opportunities to debate, contradict, and affirm their opinions about a range of gendered social issues in India such as sexual harassment of women in public places, stigmas associated with single women, expectations of women to be domestic, pressures on married women to obey elders in husbands’ families, and the merits of arranged versus choice/love marriages. . . . In contrast to these collective sessions where young women’s discussions primarily revolved around gender discrimination toward women as a group, in individual interviews, many women were much more talkative about restrictions on their sexuality, and several women shared their frustrations with immediate, everyday problems pertaining to family members’ control over their movements. (pp. 84–86)

Parameswaran’s (2001) work illustrates well the different kinds of data that can be collected from groups versus individuals, with both kinds of data being important in long-term or intensive fieldwork. I had similar experiences in Burkina Faso and Tanzania, where villagers much preferred group interviews for formal and structured interactions and the only way to get individual interviews was informally when walking somewhere or doing something with an individual. On several occasions, I tried scheduling and conducting individual interviews only to have many other people present when I arrived. Such cross-cultural differences in valuing individual versus group interactions provide a segue to the next section on cross-cultural interviewing.

Cross-Cultural Interviewing

Culture and place demand our attention not because our concepts of them are definitive or authoritative, but because they are fragile and fraught with dispute.

—Jody Berland (1997, p. 9) Cultural studies scholar, York University, Toronto, Canada

Cross-cultural inquiries add layers of complexity to the already-complex interactions of an interview. The possibility for misunderstandings is increased significantly. Ironically, economic and cultural globalization, far from reducing the likelihood of misunderstandings, may simply make miscommunication more nuanced and harder to detect because of false assumptions about shared meanings. Whiting (1990) tellingly explored cross-cultural differences in his book, You Gotta Have Wa, on how Americans and Japanese play seemingly the same game, baseball, quite differently—and then uses those differences as entrées into the two cultures.

Ethnographic interviewing has always been inherently cross-cultural but has the advantage of being grounded in long-term relationships and in-depth participant observations. More problematic, and the focus of this section, are short-term studies for theses or student exchange projects and brief evaluation site visits sponsored by international development agencies and philanthropic foundations. In the latter case, teams of a few Westerners are flown into a developing country for a week to a month to assess a project, often with counterparts from the local culture. These rapid appraisals revolve around cross-cultural interviewing and are more vulnerable to misinterpretation and miscommunication than traditional, long-term anthropological fieldwork. Examples of the potential problems, presented in the sections that follow, will hopefully help sensitize students, short-term site visitors, and evaluators to the precariousness of cross-cultural interviewing. As Rubin and Rubin (1995) have noted,

You don’t have to be a woman to interview women, or a sumo wrestler to interview sumo wrestlers. But if you are going to cross social gaps and go where you are ignorant, you have to recognize and deal with cultural barriers to communication. And you have to accept that how you are seen by the person being interviewed will affect what is said. (p. 39)