Blog 14

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.