Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T18:49:42.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: Interviews vs. ‘natural’ contexts: A false dilemma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Anna De Fina  and
Sabina Perrino
Anna De Fina
Affiliation:
Italian Department, ICC 307 J, Georgetown University, 37 and O Streets NW, Washington DC, 20057, USAdefinaa@georgetown.edu
Sabina Perrino
Affiliation:
Department of Romance Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan, 812 East Washington St., 4108 MLB, Box 1275, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1275, USAsperrino@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The popularity of interviewing as a method of data collection in the social sciences is a recognized fact. In their survey of qualitative research paradigms and methods, Denzin and Lincoln (2004:353) declare that “the interview is the favorite methodological tool of the qualitative researcher.” And, describing data-collection techniques in sociolinguistics and dialectology, Fuller (2000:388) argues that “much of the data in the field comes from interviews.” These assertions are hardly surprising given the central role that interviews have assumed as an essential part of the toolkit of the qualitative researcher since the early decades of the twentieth century (Fontana & Frei 2004). Interviews are the most common cross-disciplinary research instruments since they are widely used by investigators in fields as diverse as education, anthropology, sociology, social psychology, and social history, where they serve as vital research methods alone or in combination with other techniques such as participant observation. Given the centrality of interpretive and qualitative research paradigms in sociolinguistics, ethnography, linguistic anthropology, and narrative studies, the interview has acquired an even more prominent place for investigation in these disciplines. However, this research method and tool for collecting data has been the object of extremes of confidence and criticism. On one side there are those who try to erase the interactional context of the interview, believing that it is both possible and desirable to make participants forget about the event so that interviewers can access their “natural” behavior. On the opposite side there are those who argue that interviews are “inauthentic” and “artificial” contexts for data collection and therefore it is best to avoid them completely. In both extremes, the interview ends up being a problem to overcome. One unfortunate result of these attitudes has been that the interview as a real communicative event has been understudied. Our objective with this special issue is to contribute to redressing this tendency by drawing attention to the need for, and advantages of, the research interview as a legitimate interactional encounter, and taking narrative as our focus. In doing this we build on a small but significant cross-disciplinary body of mostly recent scholarship that has analyzed a variety of issues related to the use of semi-structured and open-ended interviews in qualitative research, and that has recognized the crucial importance of placing interview data in context.

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 40 , Special Issue 1: Narratives in interviews, Interviews in narrative studies , February 2011 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, Paul, & Delamont, Sara (2006). Rescuing narrative from qualitative research. Narrative Inquiry 16(1):173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Carolyn, & Johnson, Greer (2000). Stories of courtship and marriage: Orientations in openings. Narrative Inquiry 10(1):1–25.Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. (Cambridge studies in oral and literate culture 10.) New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13:145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Susan (2006). Becoming a mother after DES: Intensive mothering in spite of it all. In Fina, Anna De, Schiffrin, Deborah, & Bamberg, Michael (eds.), Discourse and identity, 233–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Jerome (2010). Narrative, culture, and mind. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Fina, Anna De, & Nylund, Anastasia (eds.), Telling stories: Language, narrative, and social life, 45–49. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cicourel, Aaron Victor (1964). Method and measurement in sociology. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia, & Bailey, Guy (2001). The effects of the race of the interviewer on sociolinguistic fieldwork. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5:254–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna (2009). Narratives in interviews: The case of accounts. Narrative Inquiry 19(2):232–57.Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman K., & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (eds.) (2004). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Eisikovits, Edina (1987). Sex differences in inter-group and intra-group interaction among adolescents. In Pauwels, Anne (ed.), Women and language in Australian and New Zealand society, 45–58. Sidney: Australian Professional Publications.Google Scholar
Fontana, Andrea, & Frei, James H. (2004). Interviewing: The art of science. In Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 361–76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet (2000). Changing perspectives on data: Interviews as situated speech. American Speech 75(4):388–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Coupland, Nikolas (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard; Coupland, Nikolas; & Coupland, Justine (1991). Accomodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine, & Coupland, Nikolas (eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics, 1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1997). Towards families of stories in context. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1–4):107–12.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Atkinson, J. Maxwell (1984). Introduction. In Atkinson, Maxwell J. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Herbert H.; with Cobb, William J.; Feldman, Jacob J.; Hart, Clyde W.; and Stember, Charles Herbert. (1975). Interviewing in social research. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1957). Shifters and verbal categories. In Waugh, Linda R. & Monville-Burston, Monique (eds.), On language: Roman Jakobson, 1–45. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Greer (2008). Making visible an ideological dilemma in an interview narrative about social trauma. Narrative Inquiry 18(2):187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller-Cohen, Deborah, & Dyer, Judy (1997). Intertextuality and the narrative of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1–4):147–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50:537–67.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William, & Waletzky, Joshua (1967/1997). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Helm, June (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Lucius-Hoene, Gabriele, & Depperman, Arnulf (2000). Narrative identity empiricized: A dialogical and positioning approach to autobiographical research interviews. Narrative Inquiry 10(1):199–222.Google Scholar
Mishler, Elliot George (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy, & Giles, Howard (1996). Linguistic accommodation. In Goebl, Hans, Nelde, Peter H., Starý, Zdenĕc, & Wolck, Wolfgang, (eds.), Contact linguistics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 33–342. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, & Capps, Lisa (2001). Living narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perrino, Sabina M. (2005). Participant transposition in Senegalese oral narrative. Narrative Inquiry 15(2):345–75.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan (1996). Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In Richardson, John (ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences, 125–40. Leicester: BPS Books.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan, & Wetherell, Margaret (1995). Natural order: Why social psychologists should study (a constructed version of) natural language, and why they have not done so. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14(1–2):216–22.Google Scholar
Rapley, Timothy John (2001). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analyzing interviews. Qualitative Research 1(3):303–23.Google Scholar
Rickford, John, & McNair-Knox, Faye (1994). Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, Douglas & Finnegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 235–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riessman, Catherine Koler (2008). Narrative methods in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Seale, Clive (1998). Qualitative interviewing. In Seale, Clive (ed.), Researching society and culture, 202–16. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997). ‘Narrative analysis’ thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1–4):97–106.Google Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie (2004). Constructing ethnicity in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(2):163–95.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1997). The improvisational performance of culture in real time discursive practice. In Sawyer, Robert Keith (ed.), Creativity in performance, 265–312. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Speer, Susan A. (2002). ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies 4(4):511–25.Google Scholar
ten Have, Paul (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wortham, Stanton E. F. (2001). Narratives in action. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Young, Katharine G. (1987). Taleworlds and storyrealms. Dodrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar