Theorizing the Interview

Transcription

Theorizing the Interview
Author(s): Ray Pawson
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 295-314
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/591728 .
Accessed: 27/12/2012 03:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 27 Dec 2012 03:20:37 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ray Pawson
Theorizingthe interview
ABSTRACT
This paper attempts to breathe a little life into one of the most moribund
corners of the methodological literature, namely the 'debate' on interview
strategyand the supposed opposition between 'structured'and 'unstructured'
approaches.Fromthe verybeginning,we tend to learn aboutinterviewingas an
issue concerning the prosand consof each respective strategy.The choice of
interviewing style is thus presented as a matter of inclination towards
standardizationversus sensitivity,enumerationversusemancipation,anonymity versusardour,and so forth. All such distinctionsare essentiallymethod-driven
and have resulted in extensive technical literatures on how to achieve the
chosen ends. Forgotten,therefore, in most of the literatureis the very purpose
of the interview- namely to advance data in order to inspire/validate/falsify/
approach
modify sociologicalexplanation.This paper proposes a theory-driven
to the construction of the interview. It takes on board two contemporary
approaches to sociological understanding, namely a realisttheory of explatheory of socialbeing, and attemptsto incorporate
nation and a structurationist
their principlesinto the basicstructureof the interview.The paper is illustrated
with examples from the author's research with prisoners, and so hopes to
inspire a donsand cons approachto the interview.
INTRODUCTION
There is a timelessqualityto methodologicaldebate in sociology.Readers
will recognize the mode instantly, if I give it the label of the 'polarity
principle'. It operates as follows. Whatever the issue, be it a matter of
fundamental strategy or the application of practicalskill, two camps of
basicallyopposite persuasion will draw up and glare at each other, with
the result that the development of the said method willbe forever framed
in a discourseof dualism.The reason for the methodologicalbifurcation
is, of course, that most of the said polaritiesseem to be 'nested'.Thus, if we
start with a broad epistemological opposition ('positivism' versus
'phenomenology'),this tends to have implicationsfor explanatory scope
('nomothetic'versus 'idiographic'),for data collection strategy ('quantitative' versus 'qualitative'),for population studied ('sample'versus 'case
study')and so on.
Bri. Jnl. of Sociology Volumeno. 47 Issue no. 2 June 1996
ISSN 0007-1315
) LotldonSchoolof F:conomics1996
Pawson
Ray
296
voices, of
There are other methodological
exaggerate.
not
must
recognizablewhen
I
strategywhich willbe equallyalwaysstruckme as
a
espouse
These
course.
This approachhas
principle'.
it as the 'pluralist
refer
Newby's(1977) adjecIto
characterizedby Bell and tends to be argued
memorably
most
being
pluralism.What
truck
namelydecentmethodological
tive,
researchers have little
often
is
it
is that proper, get-your-hands-dirty
practice
here
since in actualresearch
thesesupposed polarities, operate with a combinationof diverse
with
indeed advantageous,to there are studieswhich have pooled
sensible,
It goes without saying that formal and informalinterviewand
methods.
of the
with the ethnography, the
survey
the
comprehensiveunderstanding
more
a
produced
always
on,thereby
soand
the same example is
under study. Oddly enough,
institution
Barker'sMoonies( 1984).
the polarity
I'm sure you know it quoted,
express a preference for tetchy introto
not
is
here
purpose
My
Indeed, this somewhat
or the pluralistprinciple. it is, namelythe constructionof yet
principle
what
a plague of
should be recognizedfor
duction
My task is thus to declare
dualism.
methodological
reasoning is that
another
and the pragmatists.My
purists
the
of
fact leaves
houses
the
both
them, their opposition in methodobetween
gulf
of
seeming
to
the
despite
'purist'approach
debate unchanged. The
which attempts to
methodological
the 'rational reconstruction'
is
rule-making
apparatuswith
logical
of an entire methodological
consistency
these
logical
the
achieve
axiom. Disagreement on
described
epistemological/ontological
basic
some
to the nested oppositions approach,
axioms automatically leads
basic
a-bit-of-this-and-a-bit-of-that beyond
Yet pluralists,with their
above.
no methodologicalrefinements
thinking,
develop no new
go as follows.
actually
Their argument tends to
compromise.
qualitamid-way
features,
fuzzy
the
for structural/institutional
good
is
needs
method
investigation
Quantitative
our
for the meaningful stuff; of both worlds.
best
are
approaches
tive
and make the best
so let us do the decent thing
by these antagonboth,
been shaken but not stirred
to promote a
want
Sociologicalmethod has
I
a framework,
such
Against
year.
a
to promote
for many
isms
out of the trenches, in order
syngenuine
principle'.In order to get
be
to
'parley
there needs
development,
most
generalmethodological opposites. The place to startis with the
Even
between the ranksof
thesis
between 'theory'and 'method'. as
that
all
of
stultifyingbifurcation
('armchairtheorists'
describe these domains
have
themetaphors used to
theorists'versus'underlabourers')
'grand
workers',
1959)
(
Mills
'field
to
opposedto
One has to go right back
to note
interesting
is
It
thering of intellectualapartheid.
at a dialogue.
attempts
real
a
for
strikes
1957)
(
andMerton
of modern sociology, Giddens, of his
synthesiser
great
the
thateven
the implications
it comes to discussing
state of repose when
empiricalmethod.
structurationtheory for
theoretical
theory,as withany competing
The conceptsof structuration research perspectives be regarded as
many
perspective should for
more. ( 1984:362)
nothing
sensitisingdevices,
Theorizing
theinterview
FIGURE I:
297
Structured
interviews
Q.
Operationalization
\
/
/
A.
2
Question
2
gResearcher'sA
</2
\
/
A.
\
g
Subject's
>
XJ
G
Analysis
\
2
Answer
1/
Althoughthe scopeof thispaperis soundingevermoregrandiose,I do
not pretendto furtherthe Mertonianor Millseanthesishere. I actually
havea verymodestambition,in respectof but one example.Methodologicalwritingon 'interviewing'
typifieswhat I have been sayinghere
(technically-driven,
two main stylesand a mid-waycompromise).The
paper suggests we begin to parley. What if we give theoriststhe
responsibility
to designan interview?Whatmighttheycomeup with?
OLD ANTAGONISMS
In one wayor another,in orderto get theirdata,sociologistsend up in
talkingto people.Thus,despitepossiblybeingthemostinspectedpieceof
socialinteraction,researchersremainat loggerheadson how to harness
the flowof informationthat emergesfrom these dialogues.I refer, of
course, to the battle lines between 'structured'and 'unstructured'
interviewing
andasa prefaceto attemptingto transcendthisdistinction,I
reducea fewdecadesof argumentation
betweenthe twoto the following
coupleof paragraphs.
Figure I representsthe flow of informationin the more formal,
structuredapproaches.The subject'sideas and the subjectmatterof
investigationare one and the samething.The rationaleis to providea
simple,neutralstimulusin orderto tapthetrue'responses'
or true'values'
Pawson
Ray
298
II: Unstructured! intenviews
FIGURE
all
of individualsubjects.The usage of an identicalstimuluswiththe
across
respondentsis saidto allowfor propercomparisonto be made
that
entirefieldof potentialviewpoints.Criticsof suchanapproachstress
of
flow
the
the researcher'sconceptualsystemis imposedentirelyon
of
set
a
to
information.The subject'sresponse is limited entirely
catresponse
operationalfragments.Set questionsand predetermined
the
egories offer little opportunityto question,or even understand,
chosentheoreticalframework.
researcher's
II
Figure representsthe flow of informationin the unstructured
of
(qualitative)interview.The subject'sideas and the subjectmatter
of
task
the
has
investigationare one and the samething.Datacollection
is
provided
creatinga conversationalsettingin whichthe information
investigator
The
faithfulto the frameof referenceof the respondent.
of
offers minimalsteerageof the researchtopic withinbroad areasan
such
of
Critics
respondent.
to each
discussionastheyseemappropriate
approachstressthattheinformationcollectedin sucha situationis diverse
anddiscursiveandthushardto comparefromrespondentto respondent.
areaccusedof selectingfromthismassiveflowof information
Researchers
utterances
andthusfittingtogethersmallfragmentsof the respondent's
data is
the
Whilst
framework.
explanatory
into their own preferred
theoryis
theresearcher's
supposedto emergein 'mutual'understanding,
neverclearlyon viewto the subject.
a
Thisparticularoppositionhasprovenmoredoggedandlessproneto
Theorizingtheinterview
299
collapseinto pluralismthan any other domain in the technicalrepertoire
of sociology.The reason for this, of course, is the enhanced celebrationof
the unstructured model as a feature of the development of certain
fashionable research strategies which regard themselves not merely as
'qualitative'but as 'participatory'or 'emancipatory'(Oakley 1981; Barnes
1992). Pluralistthinking on the interview exists of course, but tends to
play safe with a horses-for-courses approach - if you want factual
information, go for the structuredapproach- if you want interpretative
detail, go unstructured (Malseed 1987). Alongside this, perhaps, is the
much used but little celebrated pluralist midway compromise, the
semi-structuredinterviewwhich recognizesthat by offering respondents
a chance to elaborate on their fixed-choice answers that both hard,
comparableand rich, meaningful data can ensue.
In advocatinga 'theory-driven'position within this debate, I will in fact
seek out a midway position (c.f. Foddy 1993:73) which combines a
'structured'and 'unstructured'approach. However, I wish to do so in a
manner which transcendsthe fuzzy mid-ground compromise and promises more than the creationof a comprehensive,many-sideddata set. The
point of trying to synthesise these methods is to go beyond saying what
they cover, and to show whyboth qualitativeand quantitativeinformation
are needed in sociologicalexplanationand, aboveall, to showhowit is to be
melded together.
ENTER THEORY
The startingpoint for this effort is to rethink the 'task'of the interviewas
well as the 'positioning'of the respondent. Perhapsthe crucialdifference
in what I advocateis a change in thinking about the subjectmatterof the
interview (c.f. Pawson 1989, Ch. 10). Both 'mainstream'models tend to
suppose that the subjectof the interviewis its subjectmatter. The task is
thus to ascertain(accordingto the favoured method) informationwhichis
faithful to the subject'sthoughts and deeds. On the theory-drivenmodel
theresearcher's
theoryis thesubjectmatterof theinterview,andthesubjectis thereto
confirmorfalsifyand,aboveall, torefinethattheory.
To many, the (italicized)statement above will seem a curiosity, since
theoretical considerationsare seldom taken to have such an immediate
'reach'into the world of data and the concerns of the subject. Nothing
could be further from the truth. I want to illustrate this inevitable and
intimate interrelationshipbetween theory and method with some of my
own researchon the rehabilitativepotentialof education in prisons.This
is an ongoing project carried out collaboratively with 'corrections'
researchersin the UK and Canada (Duguid 1981). It is an evaluationof
some long-standing higher education courses carried out within prison
walls, and seeks to discover whether attending such courses is associated
with reduced reconvictionrates. In order to answer such a question, we
300
FIGURE III:
Ray Pawson
Baszcelementsof realistexplanation
Context (C)
suppose it is necessary to learn what it is about 'education'which might
change an inmates reasoning about crime, and to discover what
individualcircumstancesand institutionalcontexts might prove favourable to such a transformation.Now, as the reader will be able to imagine,
we pursue a whole range of particular theories in exploring such
questions.For the purposesof this paper, the detailof our meagreefforts
in this direction are unimportant, since our hypotheses carry certain
broad featureswhich I believe to be common to the explanatorystructure
of most substantivetheory in sociology. It is these general features of
explanationwhich must be attended to if we are to advancemethodological thinking on the interview.
In my view, the starting point of any attempt to understand the synthesisof the quantitativeand qualitativeis to celebratethe potentialof the
'realist'approach to social investigation.Realism'shead start over other
attempts to codify the rules of sociologicalmethod is its commitmentto
'ontologicaldepth' in explanation, that is to say-the notion that since
socialevents are interwovenbetween variouslayersof socialreality,then
so must be any accountof them. There has been a plethoraof attemptsto
portraythe fine texture of this interlinkage,so much so that realismrisks
becoming an incoherent sack-of-potatoesof a method. I cut a very long
storyshort here by assertingthat in my book (Pawson1989) realistexplanation can be boiled down to three key features (see Figure III).
theinterview
Theorizing
301
These three featurescan be woventogetherto form a fundamental
well
strategyfor socialresearchand one thatis particularly
explanatory
together.
put
is
world
social
the
way
the
with
suitedto gettingto grips
propositionsaremadeas follows
Explanatory
The basictaskof sociologicalinquiryis to explaininteresting,puzzling,
sociallysignificantoutcomepatterns(O)betweeneventsor happenings
or social properties.Explanationtakes the form of positingsome
underlyingmechanism(M)whichgeneratestheseoutcomesand thus
consistsof propositionsabouthow the interplaybetweenagencyand
closurerequires
structurehasconsistutedtheseoutcomes.Explanatory
of how
examination
an
also
is
there
that,withinthe sameinvestigation,
and
conditional,
and
contingent
is
the workingsof such mechanisms
(C).
contexts
institutional
or
historical
thusareonlyfiredin particular
in action,let me demonstrate
As an exampleof realisttheory-making
example.The startingpointis
thisschemausingthe 'campus-in-a-prison'
the assumptionthat prison educationcoursesdo not 'work'towards
in some undifferentiatedway. Attendingsuch a course
rehabilitation
work
involvesa myriadof differenteventsandexperiences.Explanatory
- i.e.
(O)
outcome
beginsbyconsideringcasesin whichthereis a positive
is
activity
theoretical
key
thecessationof criminalactivityon release.The
which
'education'
in
to speculateupon the mechanisms(M) involved
mightprovokea prisonerinto reckoningthat a way of life they once
consideredjustified is justified no longer. In higher educationour
weaponsarethe rathergentileonesof reasoning,thoughtandreflection,
way,I cangivesomeexamples(intheory)
andin a massivelyabbreviated
of how these might sedimentinto an underlyingprocessof change.
(Ml),to
andself-confidence
Educationmightbe a spurto self-realization
and
skills
social
increased
to
(M2),
economicpotentialandcareer-building
to
(M4),
responsibility
civic
and
change
(M3);to moral
publicacceptability
(M5).
self-reflection
cognitivechangeanddeepening
herenotbecausetheyareexhausThesemechanismsareparaphrased
wise and worthy.Indeed, as
particularly
even
tive and efficaciousor
far-fetchedin many prison
woefully
be
can
everyone knows, they
contraveningforces(M6)in
of
range
whole
a
are
contexts,wherethere
imperativewhich
explanatory
great
next
the
to
me
brings
operation.This
contexts(C)
social
and
institutional
different
of
impact
the
is to consider
on the processdescribedabove.Anyeducationistwouldconcedethatone
needs the appropriate'students'and 'climate'to sustain objectives.
Theory thus has the job of speculatingon 'for whom and in what
suchmechanismsmightbe influential.
circumstances'
Prisonorganizationitself, of course, is a responseto the different
charactersand circumstancesof the inmates.Thus we have young
offenders institutes(Cl), open prisons (C2),dispersalprisons (C3),
trainingprisons(C4)and so forth as well as differentsecurityclassifiSuchmanagerialthinking
cationsfor inmateswithineachestablishment.
RayPawson
302
impingeson the successof a prison
educationcourseat two different
levels.Eachof the potential
mechanisms
for reformthrougheducation
aboveis goingto havemore(orless)
scope
'typical'inmate.Thus by dint of the accordingto the profileof the
age (C5), offence (C6),custodial
record (C7) etc. certain
establishmentswill have an 'availability'
of
suitabletypes.Regimedifferenceswill
alsobite at the institutionallevel
andsince prisonsare also about
security,surveillanceand control,the
precise'ethos'of the establishment
of any rehabilitationmechanism (C8)willlimitthe chancesof success
incorporatedwithinan educational
programme.
Of course,thereis moreto
'rehabilitation'
thanthis.Thislittlerealist
snapshot
is intendedprimarily
to listthe kindof 'ingredients'
whichone
would
use in a fullexplanation(and
evaluation).It thusactsasa prelude
tomy mainquestionabouthow
to
thedata.Beforewe reachthatpoint,tracksuchingredientsthroughinto
let me addone
typical
explanatoryassumptionwhichI also take furtherandentirely
understanding
the interview.This concerns as a prerequisitefor
what Giddenscalls the
'knowledgeability'
of the actor in processesof
socialtransformation.
People
arealwaysknowledgeable
about
the
reasons
for theirconduct
ina way which can never carry
total awarenessof the entire setbut
of
structural
conditionswhich prompt an action,
nor the full set of
potential
consequencesof that action (Giddens
1984). For instance,
prisoners
willenteran educationwitha clear
understanding
of whyit is
areasonablechoice from the
(few) opportunitiesavailable,
without
necessarily
appreciatingthatcertainof their
backgroundfeatures(age,
criminal
history,previouseducation,etc.) have
more
likely.Nor willtheirreasonsfor trying madetheircandidature
education(sanctuary
the
from
wings, choosing the lesser of
several
evils, a
necessarily
correspondto the outcomesthat can good doss, etc.)
ensue (developing
interests,
rehabilitation).
In attemptingto construct
explanations
for the
patterning
of socialactivity,the researcheris
thus
trying
to
develop
an
understanding
whichincludes
abouttheirsubjects'reasoning
withina wider model of hypotheses
their causes
positioning
of the actorwithinsociological and consequences.This
explanationis summarized
figure
in
four whichborrowsfrom
(1984:5).
Atthe risk of repetition,letGiddens
me stress that Figures III and
IV
represent
an entirelygeneralpictureof
sociological
explanation.
For
instance,
exactlythe sameingredients
agency
and structure,contextually (ontologicaldepth,the dualityof
conditionedcausal mechanisms,
knowledgeable
actionwithunacknowledged
conditionsand unintended
consequences)
can be found in explanations
of everythingfrom social
mobility
(Goldthorpeet al. 1980)to car parkcrime
(Tilley1993).The
task
now is to say- if this is the structure
of
'theory'
and 'theory'is the
subject
matterof the interview,whatarethe
implications
for the waywe
construct
data?
Context
-Mechanism-
,
|
Theorzzingtheinte7view
FIGURE IV:
303
actor
Structurationtheoryand the(partly)knowledgeable
Unacknowledged
conditions
of action
t
.
__
,
__
Knowledgeability
+
>
Unintended
consequences
of action
'
.
.
,
:
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
t
THE THEORY-DRIVEN IN I ERVIEW
Carried to the point of data collection, these explanatory imperatives
prefigure a divisionof labourin the practice of interviewing, one based
about different aspectsof the topic under
squarelyin a divisionof expertise
investigation.Between them the researcherand subjectknow a great deal
about their subjectmatters, the trick is to get both knowledge domains'scholarship'and 'savvy'- workingin the same direction.
How does such a taskbreakdown?As a firstapproximation,we can say
(using realistexplanatorydistinctions)that the understandingof contexts
and outcomesshould be led by the researcher's conceptualizations.In
relation to my working example, on matters such as the calculationof
'reconviction rates', the categorization of'offence' types, the measurement of 'educationalbackground',the phrasingof questionson 'custodial
record' and so forth, the conceptual distinctions involved should be
derived from the researcher'stheory and these meaningsshould be made
clear to the respondent in the getting of information.
is another matter. In the example,
Exploring explanatory mechanisms
these speak of the reasoning, choices, motivationswhich develop during
prison education programmes. Typically, it will be the case that the
researcherwill have a range of provisionalexpectationsabout what these
may be. Equally typically, the 'hypotheses' will be 'theoreticallyoverdetermined' in that a whole range of potential mechanisms may be
consistent with the outcomes postulated in the inquiry. Even in the
'mini-theory'of rehabilitationdescribed above, I managed to speculate
upon potentialchanges in personal,economic, social,moraland cognitive
mechanisms within the prison classroom. In short, in the realm of
'generative mechanisms', the researcher will often assume that the
balanceof expertise lies with the informantin describingthe detailedway
in which reasoning contributesto socialchange.
304
Ray Pawson
FIGURE V:
Thetheory-driven
interview
Teaches
conceptual
structu re
Learns
and applies
conceptual
structure
Motivational
/
accounts < '
proposed
Motivational
accounts
refined
Here we reach the crux of my argument. In my suggestion of such a
divisionof labour,the reader maybe experiencinga sense of dejavu and a
correspondingdisappointment.Do not the convential(puristor pluralist)
models of the interviewacknowledgethe difference between'factual'and
'attitudinal'questions or between 'institutional'and 'affective'domains,
and lay down a rather well-worntechnicalapparatusfor tacklingeach namely the 'structured'and 'unstructured'interview?Well, yes indeed
they do, but the whole point I am makingis that these distinctionsactually
misunderstandthe divisionof labourbetween researcherand informant,
and thus misspecify the requisite technical apparatus. By leading with
theory, we can come to a betterunderstandingof the divisionof expertise
in the interview,which I try to capturein FigureV and whichis distinctive
in bringing to the fore two erstwhile hidden feature of data collection
namely:a) the teaching-learning function and b) the conceptualfocusing
,
.
tunctlon.
Fear not, dear reader. Although Figure V may look the demented
scribblingof a city-centre traffic-flowplanner, it does in fact depict an
information
flow which is common to all interviews.This flow needs to be
understood clearly and then manipulated sensitivelyif we are to locate
subject's knowledge into sociological explanations. The information
highwayon the model remainsa good old-fashionedstructuredquestion
Theorizing
theinte7view
305
and answer sequence running through the centre of the figure.
Thankfully,the mostcommon interviewingexperience is thatif one puts a
straightquestion, most of the time one gets a straight answer. This little
miracle happens routinely because researcher and subject share a
taken-for-grantedset of conceptual building blocks. Social interactionis
premisedon thisrealmof the accepted-as-real
whichallowsus to knowwe are
talkingabout the same thing. (Giddens 1984: 331).
This item-by-item, utterance-by-utterance,membership category-bymembershipcategory understanding is, however, only the beginning of
the story.Oureverydayfamiliaritywithconversationalpracticeswillalways
make interviewshappen but not alwaysallow for the apposite data to be
constructed.This is where the 'teacher-learner'function comes in. We are
interested here in concepts to do with 'outcome'and 'context'elements in
the explanatorystructure,and the issueis to considerhowcanwe knowthat
the subjectis attending to the researcher'sunderstandingof these items.
The traditional(structuredinterview)answerto this problemis to rely on
precisionin question wordingand clarityin operationalization.Whilstthe
precise turn of a phrase is, of course, important,my basicobjectionis that
operationaldefinitions alone are rarelysufficient to teach the subjectthe
underlying researchtack. In reducing the inquiryto variablesand values
on variablesthey, in fact, construct meaning in a manner contraryto the
way theory will have been devised.
Theory hasa complexand deep structure(recallFigureIII) and basically
the researcher will have come to learn the meaning of any individual
concept therein, through its place in these elaborate propositionalnets.
Method-driveninterviewstraditionallypay little heed to this important
source of conceptualclarity.So whilstresearcherswill know full well they
are askingquestionsabouta prisonerseducationalbackground(Cl ) as part
of a propositionabout how further education (Ml) in providingcognitive
change (M2) might produce more potential for rehabilitation (°l) in
inmateswho havebeen deprivedof earlyopportunities(C2),the inmatecan
remainblithelyunawareof these purposes and meanings. Usuallyit is the
case that this collateralinformationis smuggled in, ratherimplicitlyacross
the pages of the questionnaire. What I am suggesting here is that the
researcher/interviewerplay a much more active and explicit role in
teachingthe overallconceptualstructureof the investigationto the subject,
for this in turn will make more sense of each individual question to the
respondent. Inopracticethis means paying more attention to 'explanatory
passages',to 'sectional'and 'linking'narratives,to 'flowpaths'and 'answer
sequences',to 'repeated'and 'checking'questionsand so on. It also means
being prepared to take infinite pains to describe the nature of the
informationsought and thus a sensitivityto the struggles the respondent
may have in using what are ultimately the researchers'categories. This
function is depicted in Figure V (on the north-westernring-road).
As every interviewer will know, respondents also travel these outer
perimeters.So, as well as providing straightanswersto straightquestions,
Ray Pawson
306
subjects ponder (mostly in silence)-'who is this person?','what
is she
after?','whyam I being asked?','whathave others said?','what
should I be
saying?',and so on. The theory-drivenmodel I am presenting here
has a
unique tack on such 'hypothesis-seeking'behaviour. The aim
is not
minimizeit (as in the structured approach), nor to wallowin it (as
in the
unstructured approach), but to channelit. That is to say, the battery of
questions posed and explanatorycues offered should be
understood as
putting the subjectin a positionwhichallowsthem to think (stillin
silence,
incidentally)-'yes, I understand the general theoretical tack you
are
exploring, this makesyour conceptsclearto me, and applyingthem to
me
gives the following answer'.This partricularinformationflow is
depicted
in the 'north east' of Figure V. Elaborate as it may seem
this in fact
describesthe thought process which underlies the typical question
and
answer sequences found in most detailed formal
questionnaires and
interviews. Elsewhere (Pawson 1989, Ch. 10) I have provided
some
workingexamples of how to facilitatethe teacher-learnerfunction.
However, a further step is needed in respect of those aspects
of
explanationto which intervieweeshave a privilegedaccess, namely
their
ownreasoningprocesses.This is where the 'conceptualfocusing'
function
comesin. Such a process is intended to describethe collectionof
data on
explanatorymechanisms (M), the coverage of which is
conspicuously
absentin Pawson (1989). Thus the 'southern' ring-road in
Figure V
depictsan extension of interviewingprocesswhichallowssubjects
to have
theirown say (decidedly out loud) about how their thinking
has driven
themto particularactions. The key point, however, is that
they deliver
thesethoughts on their thoughts in the context of and,
(perhaps) as a
correctionto, the researcher's own theory. To explain - the
overall
structureof the researcher'squestions will, in general, contextualize
the
areain which the subject'smake decision and highlight some
potential
decisionmaking activitywhich goes on therein. The subject'stask
is to
agree,disagree and to categorizethemselvesin relationto the
attitudinal
patterns
as constructedin such questionsbutalsoto refine their
conceptual
basis.It is at this point that mutual knowledge is really
achieved. The
subjectis saying in effect 'this is how you have depicted the
potential
structure
of my thinking,but in my experience it happened like this . .
.'
In short, I am postulating a formula for 'attitude'
questions (more
properly,
items in the cognitiveand affectivedomainsgenerally)in which
therespondent is offered a formal descriptionof the
parametersof their
thinking
followedbyand opportunityto explain and clarifythis thinking.
Torepeat, sociologicalexplanationsoffer hypothesesabout
their subjects
reasoning
withina wider model of their causes and consequencesand the
attraction
of the particularmodel is that it reflects a division of labour
which
is best able to put these pieces together.
An 'example'is overdue at this point (and shall be delivered!).
First,I
shouldpoint out that what I describe as the 'formula' in the
previous
paragraph
does not imply the existence of some singular and unique
T.
neorzzang
thetnterview
*
*
.
307
techniquewhich capturesthe idea. The 'I'll show-you-my-theory-ifyou'll-show-me-yours'
strategy has echoes in a number of existing
methods.Two that come instantlyto mind are vignettes (in whichthe
stimulus stories are constructedto smuggle in the key theoretical
parametersunderinvestigation,upon whichthe respondentis askedto
reflect)andpilot interviews (whichsay- answerthesequestionsandplease
alsotellme whatyouthinkof'em).
DONS AND CONS
Mydetailedillustrationcomes(appropriately
enough)from some pilot
interviewingI did on a smallscaleUKversionof the campus-in-a-prison
projectat HMPFullSutton.Towardsthe end of the studiesof the first
cohortof menthroughthe course,I madean attemptto drawan overall
pictureof the men'saccountsabouthow(ifatall)thecoursehadchanged
theirattitudes,reasoning,outlook,etc.Thereare,of course,no standard
questionnaires
or attitudescalesready-madefor sucha specificpurpose,
so I hadto inventone.WhatI endedup doingwasmodifyinga 'discussion
document'producedby the then NorthernRegionalEducationOfficer
whichtookas its taskto list and elaborateupon the potential'aimsand
objectives'
of the prisoneducationservice.The adaptationtookthe form
of rewritingeachstatementof aspirationcontainedin the document,so
thattheybecamea sortof attituderatingquestionnaireto whichthe men
couldagree/disagree
andso forth.
As a researchinstrument,this could certainlybe improvedupon. It
omitssomeentirecategoriesof potentialchangeandI'mpleasedto report
that we are workingon a much more comprehensiveattackon the
problemin the Canadianversionof the study.However,the example
does have the basic methodologicalfeaturesalluded to here. It was
writtenbyan 'insider'withaneyeon encouragingpenaleducatorsto look
beyond getting their studentsthrough 'GCSE','Cityand Guilds'or
whatever.It relatesthe classroomexperienceto broaderconcernsabout
prisonand after.It contains(andthis is the importantbit)the accumulatedwisdom(oras I wouldpreferto say- 'theories')of practitioners
on
personalchangeassociatedwitheducationalprogrammesin prisons.A
littlesub-plothere is thatgiven its origins,whichI madeknownto my
subjects,therewasa 'whiffb
of the HomeOfficeaboutthe construction
of
the items.This,I recall,addeda littlespicewhenI cameto get the mento
completeandcommentuponthequestionnaire.
The actualform of questionnairewas as follows.The studentswere
presentedwith the list of statementsrepresentingpossiblegoals of a
prisoneducationcourseand they were askedto respondaccordingto
eachitemin respectof howthe statementappliesto theirexperienceof
theFullSuttoncourse.Theywererequiredto placeanswersin oneof four
categoriesas follows
Ray Pawson
308
This applies to me
to a considerableextent
to a moderateextent
to a slight extent
not at all
1
2
3
4
There follows a list of the statements and for each I record the
mean
response score using the scale as above.
The course:
Mean
response
a)
helps inmatesto acceptthemselvesand their feelings more fully
|
3.4
|
b)
helps inmatesto become more self-confidentand self-directing
|
2.4
|
c)
helps inmatesto become more acceptablepersonsto society
|
3.1
|
d)
helps inmatesto acceptmore realisticgoals for themselves
|
2.5
|
e)
helps to change the moraloutlookof the inmates
|
3.1
|
f)
helps inmatesto become more flexiblein theiropinions
|
2
l
g)
helps inmatesto behavein a maturefashion
|
2.8
|
h)
helps inmatesto change their maladjustivebehaviours
|
2.8
|
i)
helps inmatesto become more acceptantof othersand of other
pointsof view
|
2.2
|
j)
helps inmatesto rejecttheir criminalpast
|
4
l
k)
helps inmatesto assumeresponsibilityfor their own lives
|
3.4
|
1)
helps inmatesimprovetheir powerof concentrationand persistence
|
1.8
|
m)
helps inmatesto discernpreviouslyundiscoveredtalents
2
|
n)
helps inmatesto correcttheir personalitycharacteristicsin
constructiveways
|
2.8
|
o)
helps inmatesto experience success
|
2.2
|
Theorizingtheinterview
309
p)
helps to providea basison whichinmatescan build new life
|
2.6
1
q)
helps inmatesto achievecontrolover their actionsand choices
|
2.6
|
Rather a lot can be learned by the simple device of orderingthe
responses from those features which the men found consistentwith their
own experience down to those which they considered inapplicable.As
ever in data analysis, it is the patterns of response we are seeking to
uncoverand this can be aided by the device of superimposingsome breaks
and boundaries within this rank order. In the following I distinguish
those objectives which collectively met with i) considerable to modest
agreement, ii) moderate to slight agreement and iii) slight to no
agreement. I also insert a mid point axis (score 2.5) which can help us see
the general balanceof sentiments.
|
1-2
|
considerable
tomoderate
agreement
'improvepowers of concentrationand persistence'
'become more flexible in opinions'
'discernpreviouslyundiscoveredtalents'
| 2_3
|
moderate
toslightagreement
'experience success'
'acceptantof others and other points of view'
'self-confidentand self-directing'
'acceptmore realisticgoals' ................... (2.5)
'behavein a more mature fashion'
'correctpersonalitycharacteristicsin constructiveways'
'changetheir maladjustivebehaviours'
| 34
|
slighttonoagreement
'more acceptablepersons to society'
'change moral outlook'
'acceptthemselvesand their feeling more fully'
'assumeresponsibilityfor their own lives'
'rejecttheir criminalpast'
It is possible to make some rough and ready sense of the above
configuration by seeking to uncover the 'themes' which underlie the
difference between those aspirations with which the men concur and
those of which they are sceptical. It can be seen readily enough that the
items with which the men concur concern the improvement in 'mental
powers','learningskills','flexibilityof viewpoints'and so on. In short, the
310
Ray Pawson
connecting thread here is a recognition of personal change along a
dimension that perhaps speaks for itself- namelyacademicrelatedchange.
The roots of scepticism about the transformativecapacityof education
seem more diverse. There would seem to be (at least) two distinctive
features which underlie doubt. The first is when the items refer to public
acceptability.
The thinkinghere, presumablyis thatall prisonersknowthey
are no longer free agents, expect a tough receptionon releaseand do not
expect things will be dramaticallydifferent, with or without a diploma.
The second dimension which the inmates declare untouched by their
presence in the academycan be thought of as items pertainingto personal
character,especiallythose statementsgetting at their inner self and most
specifically, of course, the only item on which there was unanimity,
namely item (j) and its insinuation that education allows them to reject
their criminalpast.
What we have to this point is an unremarkable, not to say undistinguished, piece of attitudinalscalingwhichproduces,incidentally,some
rather unwelcome results - there being only the faintest whiff of
'rehabilitation'in all this data. Orthodox methodologicalthinkingdivides
habituallyat this point. The quantitativeinstinct would be to get more
formal- the pilot items could be beefed up, a proper factoranalysiscould
be attempted, and a rather larger sample could be constructed (have I
mentioned that the above data is culled from seven inmates?) The
qualitative instinct would be to ditch the lot as arbitrary numbercrunching and to go for personal involvement as the high road to
understandingpersonalchange.
It is possible to escape these weary old methodologicalstraightiackets
by considering more closely the men's reasoning in response to being
presentedwith this batteryof propositions.I can stillrecallvividlythe Full
Sutton students' outward reaction to this exercise two years on. They
moaned, they groaned; a couple of them were on the point of refusing to
complete the task at all (until I threatened them with more lectures on
mobility tables). The roots of this discomfort were exactly the same as
most people feel when they are asked to complete such exercises, but in
this case MAGNIFIEDseveraltimes. That is to say, attitudinalstatements
are normally regarded as irritating simplificationsand only with some
generosity can one reduce the richness of life's experiences down to the
pre-set categories. In this particularinstance,some of the simplifications
were regarded as more than mere irritationsbut were seen as positively
insulting(in certainrespectswhich I willcome to in a moment).
The methodologicalpoint that shines through this, however,is that the
questions perform a much more significantfunction than as the specific
stimuli to respective responses.Neither are they an invitationfor respondents to muse on whateveraspectsof their experience are centralto
them. Taken as a piece, these formal questions set a clear agenda which
represents a body of theory, offering up the researcher's potential
explanations for a closely circumscribedset of actions. Their key role,
Theorizing
theinterview
311
therefore, should be to involve the respondent in a closer articulationand
clarificationof these theories. This can be done (and was done in this
instance)by the simple device of getting the respondents to explain why
they have plumped for the particularresponses to the particularitems.
This is a common placeenough tacticin semi-structuredinterviewing,but
one thatis never understoodin the waythatI am presentingit here, namely
-as a superbvehiclefor the here's-my-theory-what's-yours
strategyof data
collection. What is induced by this process is a great deal of conceptual
hair-splittingand this is precisely the kind of data which leads to better
focused explanation.
Let us look more closelyat a couple of examples of this processat work.
Question (j)aboutinmatesrejectingtheircriminalpastsbecauseof contact
with education got short shrift, yet the subsequent account of whythe
statement is disregarded, prompts the inmates into a much more subtle
level of reflectionon their own reasoning.The following extractsgive the
accounts of four men on why they registered 'not at all' in answer to this
question. As always,transcriptsfail to give the underlying 'mood' of the
answerwhichmightbe summarizedhelpfullyhere as'furious','imperious',
'cool','cooler',respectively.
Butto reject yourcriminalpast,I'mnotrejectingit.I'mnotrejecting
what I'vedone, but you don't rejectit do you, you . . . you takeand
you . . . you step on from there and you try and learn from it. You
don't go, well you don't know. Its a part of . . . its a part of you.
I know why overall I've scored so low its because its I . . I . . I do
have thin thing umm . . . aboutpersonalresponsibility,you knowI
. . . I acknowledge that I'm in prison through my own fault, and
umm . . . if I'm going to stop coming into prison it will be down to
my own motlvatlon.
I mean its (the question) assuming that its (the course) is gonna
change somebody's whole outlook on life and behaviour and
everything I don't relate to it, don't relate it at all. I mean I can see
that the more educated you are the more you can get away I
suppose. But I don't connect with it at all.
In my case, when I commita crime I know I'm doing wrong and I
knowif I'mgoing to get caught, I'llgo to prison.So its not asthough
I'm rejecting it.
A similartheme emerges in relationto the question of whether education
can help inmatesto accept 'themselvesand their feelings more fully'.
I feel that I excepted myselfand myfeelings before I cameonto the
course, before I knew of the existence of the course.
I fully accepted my feelings a long time before I came here.
I agree that this course and education still could reallyhelp those
people who don'treallyunderstandyourself (themselves).FirstlyI
.
.
312
Ray Pawson
understand myself and I don't reallysee that (the course) leading
me in to that direction.Really(this)is one thing I have to discover
myself.
What even these few clarificationsreveal is a tension in most of these
prisoner'sbeliefs about education. It is recognizedas 'improving'and yet
they want to take credit for the improvement. They 'learn' but not as
empty buckets filled with knowledge against their betterjudgment. It is
recognized that education can lead to self-understanding but only
becauseprisonconditionsare alreadyconduciveto intense self-reflection,
since they provide many hours, days and years of opportunity for the
same.
This tension was perhaps best expressed by 'No7' who was most hostile
to this particularphase of the researchbecausehe felt the questionswere
'patronizing'and that they were full of'civil servicerhetoric'.He set out to
swat down their 'preconceived ideas' with a series of'not at alls' in his
written responses. Under follow-up questioning, he relents a little and
finds that he was'makinga nonsense of some of his own scoring.'Basically
he backtracksbecause
-
I will go down the road of agreeing, because, err . . . I feel that
education is a civilizing process ... it could well prove a
contributing factor in the adjustment to acceptablebehaviour.
Change is something that comes within but you would be taking
on board education.... it's a catalyst... more than a catalyst,as
I've said before its a civilizingprocess
Here is another man choosing his wordscarefullyand, being an educated
sort, he does indeed know his 'catalysts'from his 'contributingfactors'.
Actually,the most telling phrasehe uses here is probably'takingon board
education'and this is an image which comes through most stronglyin all
of the men's discussion. If we takeas thestartingpointthatmanyprisoners
routinely
engagein self-scrutiny
andchoice-making
thenwhata rigorousperiodof
educationcanperhapsprovide,is a meansof extending,deepeningandaffirming
suchprocesses.
Or to put this backinto prison parlance.
-
It's not the course that's changed you as such, it's you've
developed an interest inside you, you know.
-
By and large you've got your own . . . you've got your own wayof
working . . . and you can work in a number of directions . . .
you're sort of given adviceon whichwayto go and that, but at the
end of the day its your choice.
The sprinkling of metaphors in the above on 'interests inside you',
'taking on board of education', 'stepping on from there', contains
importantmessagesabout the importanceand natureof cognitivechange
as a potential mechanism for rehabilitation. The upshots of such
reasoning will be explored in the researchto come. Here I should return
Theorazing
theinterview
313
to the general methodologicalsignificanceof this tale. I readilyadmit that
the example came unfortunatelybeforethe rationaleI am in the processof
relating. To me it came as a (minor methodological) Eureka - after
months of going round the houses, trading anecdotes about early
educational experiences, the nature of crime, their likelihood of reoffence or rehabilitation,the influence of family, peers, teachers, Uncle
Tom Cobbley and all - this simple formal schedule did the trick. All at
once they talked about theirworld in mylanguage.
CONCLUSION
This paper ought to have brought on a strong sense of recognition to
researcherswho will know that the processes described here are already
part and parcel of the negotiation of meaning which goes on in any
substantial interview. The paper will have worked if these same researchers believe that the conceptual framework elaborated here provides a better methodologicalfoundation than hitherto for understanding, controlling and developing these negotiations. In particularI have
tried to rethink the boundary line between the researcher'sand subject's
knowledge.
In advocating this approach as one with general utility in data
construction,I should make it clear that I am not simplyputting the 'trick'
or the 'technique'up for inspection.All this is not simplya matterof piling
up a set of attitudinalstatementsand getting them explained. What I am
actually counselling is the information
fZowas depicted in the model in
Figure V. Its key aspect is the creation of a situation in which the
theoreticalpostulates/conceptualstructuresunder investigationare open
for inspection in a way that allows the respondent to make an informed
and criticalaccount of them. Much more could be said about when, why
and for whom one would adopt the approach.Here I only need stressthat
it involvesa highly specificand carefullyplanned route marchwhich goes
between the qualitativeand quantitativetraditions.
(Dateaccepted:April 1995)
RayPawson
Schoolof SociologyandSocialPolicy
University
ofLeeds
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barker, E. 1984 The Making of a Moonie,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Barnes, C. 1992 'Qualitative Research',
Disability,Handicapand Society7(2): 11524.
Bell, C. and Newby, H. (eds) 1977 Doing
Sociological Research, London: George
Allen & Unwin.
Duguid, S. 1981 'Prison Education and
Criminal Choice', Canadian Journal of
Criminology
23(1 ): 15-24.
Foddy, W. 1993 ConstructingQuestiorzs
for
RayPawson
314
Interviewsand Questionnaires,
Cambridge: Oakley,A. 1981'Interviewingwomen:a
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitutionof
Society,Cambridge:Polity.
Goldthorpe, J. H. et al. 1980 Social
contradiction
in terms'in H. Roberts(ed.)
Doing FeministResearch,London: Rout-
ledge.
Pawson,R. 1989A Measurefor Measures:
Mobility and Class Structure in Modern A Manifestofor EmpiricalSociology,LonBritain,Oxford:Clarendon.
don: Routledge.
Malseed,J. 1987 'StrawMen', Sociology Tilley, N. 1993 'UnderstandingCar
Parks,Crimeand CCTV',PoliceResearch
21(4):629-31.
Merton, R. K. 1957 Social Theoo and Group Paper No 42, London: Home
SocialStructure,Greencoe:FreePress.
Office.
Mills, C. Wright 1959 The Sociological
Imagination,New York:Oxford UniversityPress.

Theorizing the Interview

Transcription

Similar documents

Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the

Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative

Sadowski

Evil and Omnipotence

Jeffrey L. Brudney and Robert E. England Source

Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political

The Phylogenetic Study of Adaptive Zones: Has Phytophagy

My Fall into Knowledge

File