Blog 13

     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 the interviewee 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 can all 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? In the interview entitled “Adult Learner and New Literacies,” interviewee “M” talks about learning to use a computer.          

     M’s responses are generally kept short. A mixture of one-word answers, phrases, and repetitiveness implies that he is not overly expressive, and therefore makes it difficult to use his 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 used one-word answers when there was room to elaborate. When CH asks him if taking a course in computer programming helped him overcome his fear, M only responds with “yeah.” “Yeah” is a very casual word, very dissimilar to the formality that a “yes,” can carry. A “yes” is more serious and conveys a note of finality, whereas “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 M might have been coming from, or where his head had been at the time of his class. Readers know that M had expressed a distrust of technology in Excerpt 1, and in Excerpt 2 he describes that he was an inexperienced computer user; while it may be inferable that these insecurities are the stem of his 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 associating with them. Despite this, however, CH makes good use of M’s answer and asks what helped M overcome his 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 on just one, slightly cloudy idea interviewers can lose sight of their goal. While more explanation is preferable M has said enough for readers to understand his basic mindset about computer programming.

     M also has a few key phrases that he repeats; his two most used phrases are “you know,” which he says twelve times throughout the interview, and “I guess,” which he says nine times. These phrases lessen the impact and perceived credibility of the speaker. When a speaker compromises his 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. When being interviewed, it is implied that the interviewer is interested in your opinion—otherwise they would not take the time to ask you questions. Furthermore, to say it nine times in one interview makes a speaker look as though they have no authority in their field whatsoever. So much uncertainty diminishes the impact a statement could otherwise give. 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 that a statement; “I guess…I was afraid” makes it seem like M doesn’t know what he was feeling. All throughout the interview, M reinforces the idea of new programming making him nervous or anxious. There is no doubt that he truly disliked computer programs. By saying, “I guess,” M undermines his own feelings, although CH is obviously interested in his experiences. Furthermore, saying, “You know” puts onus on the interviewer and readers to be able to figure out what M is trying to convey; as the interviewee, it is his 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.
          Finally is the issue of repetitiveness. M makes a habit of wither repeating himself or repeating something CH has said to him. 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 he 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. Like saying “yeah” or “I guess” it lessens the listener or reader’s confidence in your authority of the topic at hand. However, mistakes like this are easily enough 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 how to make use of information that you have already received.

     Despite M’s occasional blunder, he did make his points clear enough that CH would be able to make use of them in a paper. Also, M did technically answer each question with some definition, so his view of the topic can be found with relative ease. M’s interview, in my opinion, would make a better example to accompany another source. 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. 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.