Devon Yanvary
3/18/2013
Dr. Chandler
Good Interviews Gone Bad
Interviews are one of the classic
ways of gathering information. As the name suggests, interviews provide a
person’s view on a topic, their personal stance
and any insight they may possess. With such a beneficial tool available, why
wouldn’t every researcher make use of interviews? Simply put, interviewees are
not always a source of quality information. There are many factors that can
contort an interviewee’s responses. Both participants possess the potential to
skew the results. Interviewers can use unclear wording, leading, and implying
that there is a ‘correct,’ or expected answer and can influence how successful
an interview actually is. In addition to these factors, interviewees can give
unclear or incomplete responses, be unprofessional, or let the desire to
project a certain image of them change their responses. With so many obstacles,
is it possible to make good use of a bad interview? By looking at the interview
entitled “Adult Learner and New Literacies,” we will see how an interviewee’s
casual language use can deteriorate the quality of their answer. Furthermore we
will determine if the interviewer can still use the information gathered during
the interview, despite any faulty answers, and how.
Categories for
this interview include “indecisive” and “unprofessional.” These categories are
based off of M’s mannerisms and generally short or circular ways of speaking.
Codes constituting these categories will include ‘one-word answers,’ ‘phrases’
and ‘repetition.’
Interviewee “M” talks about
learning to use a computer and exploring unfamiliar computer programs. M’s
responses are generally kept short. A mixture of one-word answers, phrases, and
repetitiveness implies that she is not overly expressive, and therefore makes
it difficult to use her responses in research. However I believe a researcher
can turn any interview into a good source of reference when the information is
approached the right way.
Many times M answered
unprofessionally when she used one-word answers (code one) even when there was
room to elaborate. When CH asks her if taking a course in computer programming
helped her overcome her fear M only responds with “yeah.” “Yeah” is a very
casual word. Whereas a “yes” is more serious and conveys a note of finality, “yeah”
often falls flat when not followed by anything. Here, to seem more personable,
M could have elaborated and said, “Yeah it helped me feel…” or “Yeah, I learned
that…” to help CH and readers see where she might have been coming from, or
where her head had been at the time of her class. In Excerpt 1 readers of the
interview were informed that M distrusted technology when she stated that she
didn’t believe the computer would “represent what [she] wanted it to represent,”
and in Excerpt 2 she explains that she was not an experienced computer user;
while it may be inferable that these insecurities are the stem of her fear of
computers, it is not explicitly stated and therefore we do not know exactly what it was about new computer
programs that scared M into not wanting to associate with them. Despite this,
however, CH makes good use of M’s answer and asks what helped M overcome her
fear. While we do not know what specifically made M fear technology, CH does
not look at the issue with tunnel vision and decides to move onto other topics.
This not only makes good use of time but also is more useful when gathering
information. By focusing in on just one, slightly underdeveloped idea interviewers
can lose sight of their goal. While more explanation is preferable, M has said
enough for readers to understand her basic mindset about computer programming
and CH has used enough sense to remember there are more topics that can be
covered to help explain M’s experiences.
M also has a few key phrases (code
two) that she repeats, making her answers both indecisive and unprofessional. M’s
two most used phrases are “you know,” which she says twelve times throughout
the interview, and “I guess,” which she says nine times. These phrases lessen
the impact and perceived credibility of the speaker. When a speaker compromises
his or her own beliefs or statements with “I guess” it invalidates what he or
she is saying. “I guess” conveys a lack of confidence in what is being said. This
uncertainty diminishes the impact M’s statement could otherwise give. In
addition to seeming confused, repeatedly saying “I guess” makes the speaker seem
as though they have no authority in their field whatsoever (or unprofessional).
When M says “I guess…I didn’t trust myself, I didn’t trust the computer, I was
afraid,” it sounds more like a rationalization than a statement; “I guess…I was
afraid” makes it seem like M doesn’t know what she was feeling. All throughout
the interview, M reinforces the idea of new programming making her nervous or
anxious. There is no doubt that she truly disliked using unfamiliar computer
programs. But by saying, “I guess,” M undermines her own feelings. Furthermore when
M follows a statement with, “You know” she puts onus on the interviewer and
readers to be able to figure out what she is trying to convey; as the
interviewee, it is her job to tell us. Good interviewers and
researchers, however, can bypass these lingual slurs and pick out what the
main idea is, according to the information the interviewee has given.
Also, this teaches researchers to not rely solely on a single source. Also, as
researchers and audience alike, it is important to take the situation into
consideration and remember that some settings are more casual than others. In
reality, M’s casual way of speaking could misrepresent her true potential and intellect.
Remembering this is another way researchers can use what may seem like inarticulate
responses.
Finally is the issue of repetitiveness
(code three). M often either repeats something she has already said or something
CH has said to her, which portrays her as indecisive. In Excerpt 2, M says “…I
guess what could happen, you know? You know, what could happen, you put your
work in you press a button and you just—what’s going to happen?” This is bad
interview form because it is both confusing to read and confusing to listen to.
M’s circular way of talking again enforces the feeling that she does not have a
good grasp on the topic. It would be sufficient to say, “I didn’t know what
would happen,” which could leave CH room to ask another question. Repeating
oneself gives the impression that, as an interviewee, you do not possess much
knowledge about the question you are answering. Similar to saying “yeah” or “I
guess” it lessens the listener or reader’s confidence in your knowledge of the
topic. However, mistakes like this are easily fixed: repeating yourself can be
perceived as a way of stressing an idea that is important to you. As a
researcher or interviewer, this is another strategy for making use of information
that you have already received.
Despite M’s occasional blunder, she
did make his points clear enough that CH could be able to make use of them in a
paper. Also, M did technically answer each question with some degree of
definition, so her view of the topic can be found with relative ease. M’s
interview, in my opinion, would be best used as an example to use alongside another
source as opposed to the interview being used as a source by itself. If I were
writing a paper on adult learners, I would find an article explaining why
adults are apprehensive when dealing with computers, and use M as an example to
back the article up. Overall, the interview does have consistent thoughts, and
substantial feedback, and contains enough information to be useful. I believe CH
would be able to use this interview in a paper by not getting stuck on details,
reading between the lines for main points and stressing points the interviewee feels
strongly about. I believe I have proven my thesis correct: even though an
interviewee might provide the utmost quality material, their input can still be
valuable and usable.
