Interviews

According to Holdtein and Gubrium (2011), interviews are not simply a method of extracting knowledge, but rather an interactive event where both interviewer and respondent engage in meaning-making. This perspective aligns well with the purpose of this essay, which is to reflect on the experiences of meaning-making and knowledge constructing by interviewing two different participants through two distinct modes: in-person and online video call. The essay will explore approaches to engaging participants, building rapport, and understanding the differences between these two interview modes, while highlighting the lessons learned. This analysis is based solely on personal learning experiences and does not seek to generalize the characteristics of each interview method.

The chosen topic for the interviews was how media workers and development professionals in Vietnam approach marginalized communities in Communication for Development (ComDev) work. To guide these interviews, a semi-structured format was used with three open-ended questions aimed at drawing out thoughtful responses about this topic. The questions include:

  1. What are the biggest challenges you face when approaching marginalized communities to foster dialogue, understanding and collaboration?
  2. What communication methods (multimedia, podcast, etc.) proven most effective in raising the voice of marginalized communities?
  3. What are the ethical considerations you should be aware of when communicating development issues and representing stories of marginalized communities?

Participant Recruitment

Participant 1 (P1), who was interviewed online, is an award-winning journalist and podcast, documentary producer with a particular focus on marginalized populations from Vietnam and Southeast Asia. I leveraged LinkedIn to establish initial contact with them. While previous attempts on Facebook with another journalist had been less successful, likely due to the platform’s more personal use, LinkedIn professional orientation seemed to foster trust and facilitating engagement. By highlighting shared professional interests and a genuine admiration for P1’s work, I was able to secure their participation.

Participant 2 (P2), who participated in an in-person interview, is a local development professional in Central Vietnam. For P2, I relied on a more traditional approach of personal introductions. Given the limited pool of ComDev practitioners in my local area, I sought recommendations from friends and colleagues. After identifying the potential participant, I provided a detailed interview brief and followed up with direct messages on Facebook to schedule an in-person meeting.

Rapport Building

As both participants were unfamiliar to me, they presented a unique opportunity to gather rich and unbiased data. Given the importance of establishing rapport with first-time interviewees, I prepared thoroughly for both interviews. As Holstein and Gubrium noted, “Background knowledge of circumstances relevant to the research topic and/or the respondent’s experience can be an invaluable resource for the interviewer” (2011, p. 76).

For P1, a well-known journalist, I initiated the interview with a brief discussion of their work, highlighting specific aspects that I admired. This not only demonstrated my respect for their expertise but also provided a common ground for further conversation. P1’s experience in media interviews allowed for a smooth transition into the formal interview.

In the case of P2, I aimed to create a relaxed and friendly atmosphere by meeting in a coffee shop and engaging in a light conversation about their work prior to the interview. This strategy proved effective, as P2 was eager to share more details about their projects, which in turn deepened my understanding of their perspective before we went in to the interview questions.

Although each participant was approached differently and came from distinct backgrounds, I found that both interviews shared a natural and comfortable atmosphere. I applied several interview techniques as outlined in the Strategies for Qualitative Interviews, including being knowledgeable, structuring the interview, using clear and simple language, and being gentle, sensitive, open, critical, and ethical sensitive. This will be discussed further below.

Difference Analysis

Visual cues and non-verbal communication

While both video call and in-person interviews provided visual encounter, such as body language and facial expressions (Irvine et al., 2012, p. 89), the latter offered a richer nonverbal experience, such as subtle gestures and physical proximity. In contrast, the online interview, while convenient, could hinder the development of “symbolic rapport” like sharing drink (Irvine et al., 2012, p. 89).

Technological constraints and acknowledgement tokens

Technological difficulties, such as internet instability, at times disrupted the flow of online interviews and made it difficult to “assess silence” (Irvine et al., 2012, p. 91) whether it was due to technical issues, a moment of reflection, or a sign of confusion. When it happened, I had to explicitly ask P1 if they understood my questions or if they needed clarification.

To ensure effective communication in both formats, active listening techniques were employed. In the online interview, verbal affirmation like “um,” “ah,” and “wow” were used to signal understanding and engagement. The in-person interview relied more on nonverbal cues, such as nodding and eye contact.

Data collection and analysis

For P1, the decision to forego audio recording allowed for a more focused and intuitive approach to data collection. However, relying solely on note-taking could limit the depth and accuracy of the collected information. In contrast, audio recording for P2 provided a more comprehensive record, but the reliance on the record could also limit my ability to focus on the interview.

Participant background and interpretation

The participants’ diverse backgrounds influenced their interpretation of the interview questions. P1, with a strong academic background in journalism and sociology, approached the questions from a more theoretical perspective. P2, with a background in architecture and a more practical approach to community development, offered a different lens.

Exploring ‘horizons of meaning’

By encouraging participants to elaborate on their experiences and perspectives, I aimed to uncover the unique “horizons of meaning” in their answers (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011, Chapter 8). For example, when discussing the challenges of community engagement, P1 mentioned internal factors like self-doubt and insecurity, while P2 focused on external obstacles like community resistance.

Other reflections

In conducting these interviews, I was mindful of the co-construction of meaning between the interviewer and the interview participants. While I had prepared a set of three core questions for both participants, I still provided context for each question and framed it in a way that was relevant to the participants’ lived experiences (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011, Chapter 8, p. 76). This proved effective when the responses were rich and detailed. However, this approach led to longer, more complex questions that could be confusing to the participants. To address this, I employed several strategies, such as asking clarifying questions, rephrasing prompts, and offering verbal cues to indicate understanding.

Moreover, I actively sought to establish rapport with participants by sharing personal anecdotes and expressing genuine interest in their answers. As Holstein and Gubrium (2011, Chapter 8, p. 76) stated that “Conversational give-and-take around topics of mutual interest is a way of conveying to the respondent that the interviewer is sensitive to, and interested in, the ongoing line of talk”.

Finally, to encourage deeper understanding of participants’ perspectives, I used a technique of “activating the respondent’s stock of knowledge”, as suggested by Holstein and Gubrium (2011, Chapter 8, p. 76). For instance, when asking P2 about ethical implications in community engagement, I initially received a response focused on researcher safety. To broaden their perspective, I redirected the question to focus on the ethical implications for the community, which prompted P2 to consider other issues such as power dynamics and equitable communication techniques.

In conclusion, there are various interview techniques can be employed to facilitate meaningful conversations, such as actively listening, asking probing questions, and creating a safe space of open and honest conversation. However, drawing on my personal experiences, ultimately, the success of an interview hinges on a shared commitment to knowledge co-creation and mutual respect. Either in-person or online interview, it is important to tailor interview approach to individual participant, adapting to unforeseen circumstances, and remaining flexible in the pursuit of deeper understanding.

Chi Duong

 

References

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2011). Chapter 6: Constructing Meaning within the Interview. In The active interview (pp. 52-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986120.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2011). Chapter 8: Rethinking interview procedures. In The active interview (pp. 73-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986120.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2011). Introduction. In The active interview (pp. 1-6). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986120.

Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2012). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086.

Unknown. (n.d.). Strategies for Qualitative interviews. https://mau.instructure.com/courses/17431/files/folder/Assignment%202%20Interviewing%20techniques?preview=2717247