I am reading: ‘Interviews: A Skeptical Review in Interpreting Interviews’. (Alvesson, M. 2021) in order to understand more about the process of thematic analysis and how to apply it to my research.
The acknowledgment in this document of how difficult it is to provide an ‘overview of a research field’ and that ‘all distinctions mean the arbitrary creation of order and patterns’ is daunting but at the same time comforting. This goes some way towards confirming my understanding of action research as being about rigour through a messy sea of information/process and the sifting of data as described in Tina Cook’s: ‘The purpose of mess in Action Research.’ In this paragraph Cook describes how a path of enquiry might branch off into other areas of discovery and this has been my experience completely:
‘We felt we were using an action research process to address issues, to learn and to develop knowledge in a manner that was appropriate to the task, but we did not see ourselves as following any given model of research processes found in the literature. We could not say we were following a particular path of enquiry or a spiral of action research as we kept branching off into other areas of discourse and discovery. We kept adapting our research, either by shifting our spiral to another plane, or by adding new loops and pathways. We felt, however, that this process of adding to, shifting and branching off, thinking and sifting, was important to our research. It helped us recognise inter-connectedness and complexities involved in our enquiries although it left us unable to isolate clear lines of progression. We then felt unsure where to go next in our enquiry and often described ourselves as ‘being in a mess’. Comfort was not found through consulting accounts of other action research projects.’
Interesting that the word comfort features here, which suggest comfort zone.
I have really grappled with several different directions in my research and have gone down countless rabbit holes and had countless tabs open for days. I also recognise the ‘rigour required to bring together a messy turn’(Cooke, T). Which has taken me way out of my own comfort zone. Applying ‘rigour’ has meant that I’ve probably written and re-written much more than I needed to but this is my method of interpreting and absorbing information.
When interviewing participants, I recognise that I am drawn to the kind of research described as ‘Romanticism’ (Dingwall 1997). This is a term new to me, as is what Alvesson describes as Neo-Positivism which he states has a dominating position (in research), although this text was written in 2011. He says that: ‘The problem with this, (Neo-Positivism) as is being increasingly recognized, is that respondents may produce only superficial and cautious responses. In addition, the meaning of words used is often unclear–trying to understand meaning often calls for follow-up questions’. Neo-Positivism seems to be centred on quantitative principles, and I found this definition of it:
‘Neopositivists consider sound scientific methodology to be the first principle of sociological analysis. For them sound scientific methodology involves mathematical and other formal models that incorporate formalization of variables’. Sociology Guide.Com 2021
I am more interested in Romanticism, as described here, as it feels like the most effective way of getting the most from the interviews and I will try to have open questions so that they are doorways rather than dead-ends.
As noted by Dingwall
(1997: 52), the ‘dominant kind of qualitative study appears to be one in which the investigator carries out a bunch of semi-structured interviews which are then taped and transcribed’. Through such interviews, the researcher often gains a first insight into the constructed realities that are wrapped up in the jargon of the respondent. Through observations, however, the researcher gains a partially independent view of the experience on which the respondent’s language has constructed those realities (Erlandson et al., 1993: 99).
Hence, interviews and observation are interactive.
I want participants to feel that they are in a ‘warm situation’ and hope that this will result in them feeling that they can genuinely share their views and be open about their artistic journeys and experiences. I have one-to-one tutorials with the students I’ve invited to participate on a regular basis and already have a rapport with them. I can see that; ‘Turning up the room temperature from cold or lukewarm (neutral) to warm or even hot (very friendly) in an interview setting is not a straightforward way of accomplishing better interviews or producing more interesting and rich accounts’.(Alvesson) so I will be mindful of sticking to the structure of the questions and of trying not to lead the interview – as much as I can stay neutral I will endeavour to do so. Especially in light of this paragraph:
‘The interview subject has potentially much of value to say, but this calls for the researcher to actively lead or support that subject into intelligent talk. Interviewer and interviewee thus collaborate in the ‘co-construction of knowledge’. The positions of the two then become less distinct and the value of the terms may in some cases be questionable’(Alvesson)
I also recognise that a ‘co-construction of knowledge’ might be inevitable as described here. But then this seems to be contradicted later in the text by describing Romanticism as ‘An active approach which may produce more varied and, therefore, more possible idea-stimulating talk’.
Also Alvesson says: ‘interviews can only be managed to a certain extent and that this leads to much complication’. So there’s contradiction here and as this is my first ever research, I am aware that I will have to just choose a method and hope that it’s the best choice. How do I get participants to feedback experience without biasing it with my own agenda, subconscious or otherwise? How do I encourage a dialogue, as I do with tutorials, and allow the flow to happen without worrying that: ‘interviewees are guided by expectations of what the researcher wants to hear and social norms for how a person should express themself’.(Alvesson)
Alvesson here quotes Fontana and Frey(1994: 371)
‘This makes the interview more honest, morally sound, and reliable, because it treats the respondent as an equal, allows him or her to express personal feelings, and therefore presents a more ‘realistic’ picture that can be uncovered using traditional interview methods’.
Alvesson further says: ‘An example here is Scheurich (1997: 67) who has argued against conventional views on interviews, emphasizing that the ‘reality’ of these is ‘ambiguous, relative, and unknowable’. This has not prevented him from claiming that interviewees are active resistors of dominance by the interviewer and from stating that ‘I have found this to be true in my own interviewing as a researcher’. He has also claimed that:
I find that interviewees carve out space of their own, that they can often control some or part of the interview, that they may push against or resist my goals, my intentions, my questions, my meanings.(Alvesson)
McNiff also states that: ‘Your increased awareness and your readiness to be self-critical will probably have an influence on the people you are working with. You are aiming to influence them for the better. There is nothing sinister in the idea of influence, and everything to celebrate; most ideas that people have were influenced by someone else, somewhere else in time and space. This is the way that knowledge evolves, a process of learning from others and reworking existing knowledge in new ways.’
The above quote makes me think of Picasso saying: “Good artists copy; great artist’s steal” He also said: ‘it takes a long time to be become young’. I think the latter of these Picasso quotes could be drawing a parallel between being young and willing to take risks (go outside of your comfort zone) compared to the self-consciousness of adulthood.
I am really interested to try out the Romanticist approach and then revisit points raised in these referenced texts.