Stuart Cunningham

カニンハム スチュアート

カニンハム, スチュアート

45027

Cunningham, Stuart

45028

Kwansei Gakuin University Repository

Theorizing Interviews within Qualitative ResearchStuart CUNNINGHAM*AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to explore the issue of the theoreticalunderpinning required for research using interviews within qualitativeresearch in applied linguistics. A means to achieving this will be to mapout the landscape of qualitative research with specific attention tointerviews. This will be mediated by two comparisons. Firstly, an obvious,but nevertheless, necessary comparison between qualitative andquantitative research will establish a working definition of qualitativeresearch. Secondly, a comparison between the different researchparadigms within qualitative research will introduce an explicit need forreflectively theorizing the form of enquiry.IntroductionInterviewing is a research tool that is used to gain insight to, amongst others,biographical details, attitudes, perceptions and interviewing is also used as a meansof fixing policy. Atkinson and Silverman (1997) note that qualitative researchers“often put special faith in the interview as the prime means of data collection”.There can be little doubt that the use of interviews has been increasing in appliedlinguistics research since the beginning of this century. In an analysis of 15 majorjournals within the field of applied linguistics, the number of qualitative researchpapers has been steadily increasing since 2000 (Richards 2009). Yet “[d]espite thisincrease, the qualitative interview has, for the most part, been undertheorized”(Mann 2011) within applied linguistics.In contrast, other social sciences, such as anthropology, sociology, and──────────────────────────────────────────* Instructor of English as a Foreign Language, School of Science and Tecnology, KwanseiGakuin UniversityKwansei Gakuin UniversityHumanities ReviewVol. 18, 2013Nishinomiya, Japan１４１psychology, have seen a tremendous amount of energy focused on the theory behindinterviews and how such theory shapes the research and findings of interview-basedresearch. These disciplines have become conscious of the danger of simplyassuming that what an interviewee says is a fact that can be reported with outfurther consideration. In anthropology, Briggs (2007) warned against “[t]he idea thatdiscourse springs from interviewees’ heads or face-to-face interactions and thenmoves in unilinear fashion to the pages of professional publications draws ourattention away from the intersection of multiple knowledge-making practices andtheir competing representation”. In sociology, Atkinson and Silverman (1997) notedthat, when dealing with interviews, “we see a stubbornly persistent Romanticimpulse in contemporary sociology: the elevation of the experiential as authentic”.In psychology, Potter and Wetherell (1987: 159) also noted the need for theorizingresearch approaches,Psychologists have been particularly prone to the trap of comparing theirdiscipline to the mythical versions of the natural sciences. They have tended tosee the natural sciences as data driven, guided by experiment and almostexclusively concerned with the production of general laws. It is probably as aconsequence of such misperception that the theoretician and non-experimentalare still regarded with suspicion in psychology. There is a dearth of full-timetheorists.Recently, however, work on theorizing interviews has taken place within appliedlinguistics (Mann 2011, Talmy 2010, Talmy, 2011, Richards 2011) that is askingsimilar questions to those already asked in the other social sciences.Comparison 1: Quantitative and qualitative.Comparing quantitative and qualitative research can so easily fall in to the trap ofcreating misleading simplifications that do little justice to either research method.However there are certain criteria within quantitative research that are such centralconsiderations that they can serve as defining concepts for the purpose of acomparison with qualitative research. These criteria are internal validity, externalvalidity, reliability and objectivity. It will be assumed that any reader not familiarwith these criteria will be capable of gaining access to a book; hence there will beno need for definitions of these criteria within this paper. Guba and Lincoln (1985)compare the four criteria above with four criteria that they feel are better suited toqualitative research (outlined in Figure 1).Credibility looks at ensuring the social reality represented in the research is thatwhich was examined. This is brought about by, firstly, adhering to good practice inStuart CUNNINGHAM１４２the research, analysis and writing up of the research, and secondly, by checkingwith the respondents whether or not they feel the findings are a fair representationof the social reality under scrutiny (sometimes called respondent validation). Ofcourse, good research practice is always commendable, however, respondentvalidation, may not always be possible, desirable, or even credible. It is worthreflecting on the consequences of attempting respondent validation in order toconsider what the research can actually gain from such practice. The second of thefour criteria was transferability. Whereas quantitative research can seek to makefindings with universal applicability, transferability seeks to make a thick descriptionof the context within which the research was carried out. This is in order to allowany reader to evaluate the relevance of the research to their own situation. Thisconcept is born of a belief that each context is unique and that replicability withinqualitative research may not be a realistic proposal. Dependability may besummarized as a peer review of the methodology that takes place before submissionfor publication. The purpose is to allow the peers to evaluate whether or not theresearch has drawn its conclusions based on the data collected and not an externalideology. Finally, “confirmability is concerned with ensuring that, while recognizingthat complete objectivity is impossible in social research, the researcher can beshown to have acted in good faith; in other words it should be apparent that he orshe has not overtly allowed personal values or theoretical inclinations to sway theconduct of the research and the findings deriving from it” (Bryman 2012: 393−394).Whilst all the above criteria will vary from project to project in their relevanceto qualitative research in applied linguistics, it is worth looking at how they caninfluence the theory behind research. Credibility accepts that social reality is sociallyconstructed and therefore immediately precludes the use of a positivist paradigm(see below). This is an implicit acceptance of the concept of a social reality createdthrough social interaction; in effect it suggests a constructive paradigm. Theontological paradigm of the researcher will eventually narrow down the choices ofresearch method. Transferability accepts the contextually driven nature of anyfindings and, rather than seeking to alter the research method or research analysis tomanufacture universally applicable findings, the researcher includes as muchmethodological information as possible. This criteria, being so contextually focused,Figure 1 Qualitative/quantitative criteria comparisonQualitative Criteria Corresponding Quantitative Criteria1.2.3.4.CredibilityTransferabilityDependabilityConfirmabilityInternal ValidityExternal validityReliabilityObjectivityTheorizing Interviews within Qualitative Research １４３means that the researcher needs to consider the interaction between the interviewerand interviewee as being relevant; the analysis of the interview data cannot deletethe interviewer from the transcript (see Potter and Hepburn 2005). The interactionbetween the interviewer and interviewee are integral to the context and, therefore,the analysis. The final two criteria both require a close attention to the theory ofinterviews insomuch as the data must be central and not an ideological belief. Thisin turn requires the researcher to pay attention to how the data will be produced andanalyzed.In short, theorizing interviews should be done before choosing a qualitative orquantitative path. The researcher will have beliefs on the nature of knowledge andhow that knowledge can be known (ontology and epistemology), and these beliefswill narrow the choices of which methodology to use. This involves a comparisonof the research paradigms that are available to the researcher.Comparison 2: Research paradigmsDenzin and Lincoln (2011) describe a paradigm as encompassing four distinctconcepts; ethics, ontology, epistemology and methodology. It would seem onlynatural that a researcher would choose the method of data collection and dataanalysis after they have theorized on their ontological and epistemological beliefs.Hatch (2002) suggests that failing to address the paradigmatic issues that ultimatelylie at the very core of research can leave researchers with a project that can becomeinconsistent or even illogical.The paradigms that are available are by no means agreed upon. Roulston(2010) sees there as being six research paradigms, Hatch (2002) identifies fiveparadigms, Denzin and Lincoln (2011) see there as being five paradigms but withsome difference from the five Hatch identifies. Hatch (2002) is by far the clearestdescription of the research paradigms and these paradigms are in Figure 2 (Hatch,2002: 13).From Figure 2, it can be seen that there is a natural progression from ontologyto methodology. Each method of data analysis is set beside an epistemological andontological belief. A researcher who does not engage in attempting to understandtheir ontological/epistemological perspective may use a method not suited foranswering the question they are interested in. Clearly, theorizing about what aninterview can reveal will require theorizing about ontological beliefs.Stuart CUNNINGHAM１４４ConclusionAtkinson and Silverman (1997) suggest that the ubiquity of the interview in modernsociety has led to an unquestioning and unreflective acceptance within society atlarge that what is said in an interview is a representation of reality that can be madeimmediately available as a resource for analysis. Yet, a reflective approach to thetheory of interviews notes the contextually driven nature of the findings and alsothat an ontological perspective should inform the manner in which the research toolis selected. Approaching interviews in qualitative research within the field oflinguistics will benefit from taking time to explore the paradigms that inform thetheories, and, in turn, the methodologies.ReferencesAtkinson, P. & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s Immortality: The interview society and theinvention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3: 304−325.Briggs, C. L. (2007). Anthropology, interviewing and communicability in contemporary society.Current Anthropology, 48: 551−580.Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Figure 2 Research ParadigmsOntology Epistemology Methodology ProductsPositivist Reality is out there to bestudied, captured andunderstoodHow the world is reallyordered ; Knower isdistinct from knownExperiments, quasi-experiments, surveys,correlational studiesFacts, theories, laws,predictionsPostpositivist Reality exists but is neverfully apprehended, onlyapproximatedApproximations ofreality; Researcher is datacollection instrumentRigorously definedqualitative methods,frequency counts, low-level statistics.Generalizations,descriptions, patterns,grounded theoryConstructivist Multiple realities areconstructedKnowledge as a humanconstruction;Naturalistic qualitativemethodsCase studies, narratives,interpretations,reconstructionsCritical/Feminist The apprehended worldmakes a materialdifference in terms ofrace, gender, and classKnowledge as subjectiveand political;Researchers’ value frameenquiryTransformative inquiry Value mediated critiquesthat challenge existingpower structures andpromote resistancePoststructuralist Order is created withinindividual minds toascribe meaning to ameaningless universeThere is no “Truth” to beknown; Researchersexamine the worldthrough textualrepresentations of it.Deconstruction;Genealogy; Data-based,multivoiced studiesDeconstructions;Genealogies: Reflexive,polyvocal textsTheorizing Interviews within Qualitative Research １４５Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Mann, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. AppliedLinguistics, 32: 6−24.Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems andpossibilities. Qualitative research in Psychology 2: 1−27.Potter, J & Wetherall, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: beyond attitudes andbehavior. London: Sage Publications Limited.Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. LanguageTeaching, 42: 147−180.Richards, K. Using micro-analysis in interviewer training: ‘continuers’ and interviewerpositioning. Applied Linguistics 32: 95−112.Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument tosocial practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30: 128−148.Talmy, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. AppliedLinguistics 32: 6−24.Stuart CUNNINGHAM１４６

Theorizing Interviews within Qualitative Research

https://kwansei.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=22932&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1

Theorizing Interviews within Qualitative Research

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kwansei Gakuin University Repository