In the hands of any researcher (of all levels in fact), there is a whole plethora of tools to pick from to advance their papers and research – one of them is interviews: depending on the type of interview it can be a starting point to become more informed about a topic one wishes to include in research, as well as compiling more nuanced data than a simple survey (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995) – in effect, it is a qualitative approach to gather insight to be used later during the research process.
Domestic abuse – reflections in the online sphere
For this writing, I have conducted two separate interviews. As I was more interested in meta-level conclusions, I decided to choose a topic that I am connected to through my professional work so I can fully focus on understanding the underlying concept – hence I settled on talking about domestic abuse and its visibility in the online communication theatre (both on social media and on news sites). One of my subjects is a women’s rights activist (TF) – working in the field for around ten years now in several non-governmental organisations, and the other is a survivor of domestic abuse (AA) whose case made into national news – since then, she has advocated for better safeguards for victims in collaboration with local governments, NGOs, and other survivors.
Due to the nature of the interviews, I reserved to note-taking only during the process, as a recording may have hindered the subjects from opening up.
As I have referred to the topic above, my questions focused on the following areas:
- the role of traditional news outlets in reporting and portraying domestic abuse cases
- how the general public interprets these news in the comment sections
- the needs of survivors in the online sphere
- how NGOs can step in and shape the conversation on social media
Making contact
I have contacted both TF and AA online; I met TF before in an event about just this topic where we had a passing conversation. I reached out to them via e-mail at their work address, which was successful in setting up the interview. In my e-mail I have referred to the event (I considered this would build just enough familiarity to allow me to interview them), which they remembered and promptly agreed to an interview online.
As for AA, I have contacted them on social media in lieu of an electronic address. I have reached out to a different survivor (who is a friend, so I have previously ruled them out from interviewing not to contaminate the data) and asked them to notify my interviewee about my request. She has then agreed to my request to interview in person.
The setting of the interview
I conducted the interview with TF online, which has proven slightly difficult. They faced connectivity issues as they were in public – in a café with some considerable background noise, and their connection dropped during the interview resulting in us turning off cameras to carry on with the conversation. This solved the issue but also made the better half of the interview akin to a telephone interview as I needed to navigate through the conversation without visual cues.
Interviewing AA, on the other hand, was conducted fully in public, and person. The setting was a quiet meeting room in a co-working space. This allowed us to have much better metacommunication throughout the interview which proved essential in understanding where probing questions might be needed.
Building rapport
In preparation for the interview, I, in my initial contact message, have notified both participants about the use-case of the interview, as well as I assured them of not recording the interview, only that I would take notes. The decision not to record was informed by my aforementioned survivor friend, who explained that AA would be more comfortable talking about their own experiences this way. As well as setting the guidelines for the interview, I have prepared myself for the interview with real-life examples of news headlines as well as public comments from various social media platforms.
During the interview I built rapport by some ramp-up questions – that eased both participants into the conversation – either by referring back to the event we participated in (in the case of TF) or asking general questions (AA) to engage in a conversation before talking about the issues at hand. After a few minutes of building trust this way, I navigated the conversation to the more concrete interview questions – asking follow-up questions multiple times for clarification for my notes, as well as to clear up inconsistencies. I steered the conversation by using different news headlines so that AA would bring her case up first, so I did not probe a question that could be too directly traumatizing.
Wrapping up the interview, I asked a few wrap-up questions to both TF and AA to allow them to further comment or ask questions themselves. After reading up on my notes, I contacted TF once again to clear a point up for me, as there was a seemingly misunderstood passage in them.
Differences, reflections, and learning outcomes
The main difference between the two interviews was the setting – and how it underpinned the need for visual clues. Without them, during my interview with TF, I felt unsure when I should interject a probing question; I asked more often for clarification, and they checked more often if their answer was adequate – in line with previous findings (Irvine et.al., 2012). In AA’s case, metacommunication could inform the guidance process of the interview, i.e. a puzzled look at one point helped me to understand that further elaboration on my end was needed.
Reflecting on the interview, I feel like the call not to record was the right one – it helped to build a more comfortable environment, but it had the cost of rigorous notetaking which one needs to work hard on should they not be well-versed in interviewing for research. It has caused me to ask for clarification multiple times that could have been avoided by a recording.
Furthermore, I need to note that I conducted these interviews in Hungarian. The language has a complex T-V distinction (unlike English), and we agreed to use the familiar tone as I have already established that tone with TF before, and AA offered to use that, which would have been impolite to refuse. This raises further questions whether this distinction can have an impact on the interviewing process.
Concluding, interviews are a great tool to produce qualitative research, gather information, and even inform grey areas, but I need to keep in mind my place and previous position withing a localised framework – as it might have an impact on subjects, as they might have previous knowledge of my work in the area.
Note: I have changed the initials of the subjects of the interviews to ensure their privacy.
Feature image: Two Man Talking in a Tavern by Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier, Public Domain
References:
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. DOI: 10.1177/1468794112439086.
Holstein J. A., Gubrium J. F. (1995). The Active Interview. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986120