By Jessica Saler
I have spent a lot of time over the last few months thinking about the final semester of school, my degree project, and what it all means moving forward. How will I take what I have learned and apply it to the work I do in my community and my country? With our degree project coming up, I still was confused about the direction I wanted to take it – after all, if I am going to be researching and writing about development, it should be something that might actually be helpful.
When we were assigned the task of interviewing two people with 3 questions, I was motivated to learn more from experts in the field of research in my region, with the hope I would feel more confident in the direction I want my degree project to go, and where it may apply to my career moving forward. As Holstein and Gubrium (1995) describe, I wanted this interview to be a “meaning-making occasion”!
With this in mind, the below questions were going to guide my interviews:
- What methodologies do you typically use in your research, and why?
- Do you find that research is changing as the concept of development is changing (such as with emerging and new technology)? If so, how do you find it changes with how we conduct and communicate research?
- What challenges do you face in conducting research in rural areas, and how do you overcome them?
These questions, although they seem simple, would provide the open-ended opportunity to hear what both interviewees specialise in and their unique challenges and provide me with some ideas to what my potential research topic might be for my degree project.
The First Interview
The first interview was held with Wayne Kelly, the Director of the Rural Development Institute held through Brandon University. He focuses largely on the social, economic, and technological changes that can help rural communities in Canada. He focuses on qualitative research. Him and I had worked together in my previous job where I worked in business development, and he always seemed willing to answer any questions I had, especially after he discovered I was going back to school to study Communications for Development. In fact, when he discovered I was focusing on the communication side of development, he had told me that specialty would be very useful in Canada, where we often lack the specialised knowledge on the role communication plays in development projects or research.
He had no hesitations when I contacted him again to see if he would be willing to be interviewed over Zoom. I explained my motivations for asking him, and described the interviewing techniques assignment. He quickly responded with eager willingness to answer my questions and gave permission to record the interview. He was given the Zoom link and questions about 3 days in advance. The reason for this was so that he could ask any clarification questions as well as provide some time to think about the questions and ponder his responses. With the interview over Zoom, I was aware that there would be a lack of visual cues to guide the interview, so I wanted to ensure that there was clarity to the phrasing of the questions, similar to the discussions written in “‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews” (Irvine, Drew, Sainsbury, 2012).
The interview itself went fairly well, although it did have its challenges. When I sent the original Zoom link, my email went into his junk folder and as a result we were late getting the interview started. With us not being in the same space and only being able to see above his shoulders, it was difficult to read his body language to guide the conversation. This led to a more structured, formal interview. He was able to elaborate on all the questions, which were incredibly helpful responses and I was able to finish the interview with a better understanding of the challenges with research in rural communities, such as the difficulties in collecting research but also how we get the research results back to those who need it the most.
Although the interview didn’t “flow” as easily over a computer screen, it was great to not have to take notes as I could refer back to the recording afterward to take notes. This allowed me to be more “”present” in the interview.
The Second Interview
My second interview was with Candice-Waddell Henowitch, an Associate Professor and researcher at Brandon University. She holds a Master’s in Psychiatric Nursing, and a PhD in Community Health Science. Her research focuses on health care practices and wellbeing through the lens of feminist, anti-racist, and decolonizing approaches. Her and I work together as the President and Vice-President on the Board of Directors for our region’s YWCA Westman, an emergency crisis shelter for women and children facing gender-based violence or domestic abuse. With women and children’s safety being a passion of mine, and Candice’s research focusing a lot on that, I wanted to interview her to gain knowledge on how to interview and interact with victims in rural communities. This interview we scheduled over lunch and went to a local cafe and restaurant. We weren’t rushed for a time commitment, and the relaxed environment and hot cups of coffee really helped to keep the conversation relaxed. This interview was not recorded, and I took notes instead to try and compare what methods I preferred.
I found this interview to be much more valuable, but not because of Dr. Kelly’s ability to answer the questions. Rather, I was able to read Candice’s body language and with us being in the same environment we were able to keep a relaxed conversation going for over an hour and a half (my interview with Dr. Kelly was approximately 35 minutes). Each question was answered clearly before the conversation was steered into a deeper dialogue of research in our community and where the gaps exist within rural resources for women escaping violence. These conversations would get so deep I eventually forgot to even write anything down, I was so invested in the conversation itself. I could also feel the passion behind Candice’s responses, and the “meaning-making” of the interview was much more prevalent. Although I believe Dr. Kelly was passionate about his work, I do feel that Zoom as a method of interviewing prevented me from really feeling the passion for his work.
The Results
Overall, both interviews were successful and had their own benefits. Zoom allowed us to be rid of both time and space constraints, and recording allowed me to focus on the conversation instead of notes. However, I lacked the personal connection and natural flow of conversation that Candice and I were able to have in the in-person interview. However, trying to take notes seemed to take away from the natural flow of dialogue so I eventually closed my notebook. Even without taking notes right until the end, I still remember so many pieces of conversation Candice and I had.
I have learned that in-person interviews with audio-recording will likely be my best method of interviewing in the future. And more importantly, I better understand what I would like my degree project to focus on!
After speaking with Dr. Kelly and Candice, I discovered there is a major gap in communication of resources for women and children escaping sexual or domestic violence in rural communities. If they live on a farm, reserve, or small town, they will have limited to no access to any support or resources unless they have the capability to travel to a city a few hours away (which is rarely possible for those in abusive situations). I would like to explore the resources available to women and strategies to communicate the support to the women and children currently in dangerous situations, specifically looking at accessibility, affordability, and capacity of these supports serving rural communities. Communication strategies are entirely different for rural communities than urban ones, and I would like to further explore this both for my degree project and for future use in my career.
Sources:
Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1995). The Active Interview. 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