Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mish Ler

    Uploaded by

    Silvana Gherman
    7 views16 pages
    Mish Ler

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mish Ler

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views16 pages

    Mish Ler

    Uploaded by

    Silvana Gherman
    Mish Ler

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 16
    Mishler E.G. (1986). Standard practice 9-34), Cambridge: Harvard Univer ‘Research interviewing: Contest and narative (pp. vst | | | | Research Interviewing Context and Narrative Elliot G. Mishler cence STANDARD PRACTICE SSS voi Harvard University Press ‘Cambridge, Matachusets, ‘nd London, England 1986, set wnowos Suipuadap onstaDeneys ‘sh uapuodsax pup Jamatarava yo (yn vonzesatut jo waned © aotaon Haye snosuENXD Jo UoNeUUN® Wanbor Aqor>eyy put Aqoo>eyy ‘mata2s por Inoomp Jo wyqord esnda» ayy soun2eq0 “2p 0} punor8ypeq se dey sip ay 1 punoy Sunt oats your pur Burge yo 2: rb Suuamsue fepAao4a ano yyy Kem 3t.L 9q 524 su0 anyrDLg pLvpunty Sea [nnn isl {A3LIGIHOUd ALORS SI ONIAdOD G3ZRIOHLAWNA ANY “TYINALVW LHORAdOD G3SN39ITS! ost FE Jwanention about wniformity of approach must beaded sith aflon: Nonetheless these defittions appear tobe wiley tues bse interes wellasof research on probes ot those ctedaboveor ar leftinpiet,Schumnanand Presee (1981, P. I), for evample, in reporting their studies of elfers re Sonics of question wording and question order, dant prose 4 specie definition but refer in pasing to the survey ier sie 35 combining ramping methods with "the sniene bor ee Snel eficien eto of obtaining informaion from people by asking question." Sometimes the definition i cre mere blque indirect. a in Kiaer's (1991) revision oft standard ‘eaton methods, kidder mes ile dination betnecs aces, ‘onnaie and imei a noes thax both hese rebar se lace on verbal reports fromthe subjects for informaon aoe {he sina expetences to hich they sve exposed sd fos Anionkge nf thie Lelio” tp. 116) And sontcones tet Interarver's Manual ofthe Surcey Reseateh Center (1076)s0 he Unveriy of Michigan, nbich ludes extensive dacontan of problems and much advice on how to conduct “when but Presents no explicit definition of interviews the research community and thet akong thee nays Se ‘echnical problens interviewing i esentaly nonpreblemai st 2 inethodr Wain this coment ef a taken forgrasned one standing, anaes and daeusslons of the nercwing thea feveal the some assumptions that may more leany be Sacer ned ‘nthe expe definitions ced ear he frst assumpsion that am intervie sa behavioral ater 10 interviewee and interviewee a speakers ofa shared language The tfercnce beaeen a concepion of mlersnedg eee of talk and concept “esta inerchanges on etl incon on" far fom al Iona aden dferom cadena ings of whe mauve ofthe eviews of nS peda quakes seo itprobens “atk and behavior, hey aera er for cnceptatn interviews at well as oer per of huntan ston sod ee, tence, contrast with each other in highly siguifere nee Situations and forms of talk have structvtesthat i vee of systematic organinaon—that rete the operation of several ‘ype of normative rles—for cramer rulwol seen sane tes, and pragmats to ues famiforscheme, Ateneo culturally grounded norms, these rule gude how hres pprepriate or napproprn to say, nl provide the base for thei ndeitandings of wha fs. Tht ow af ok apple special inimeriews, awe sal ee tea banh nee <1 and respondent yhdersandings of the meaning seo tentot questions and responce Unit of behavior onthe ey hand, af arbitrary and fragmented and become conceded telated to one anather not through higher-order rules te through a history of past socinions and renforcenane thee sates from perton to person. "That vew slows tod edd Swen pirat an lcaed exchange “The standard conception of ering as behavior bei sesbal Behavior, exces expt recognition of te culeea buctning of stusonally sclera ak The benno ete {ion removes fron consideration, inthe analysand mnespee tation of interviews, the normaly grounded and culty shared undereandinge af merece nace alae Speech swations, tn ten the covsequent decontexualiang of weston and responses lade 2 tavity af prodlons inte 2ealysis and interpretation ofintrvew dat, These problems areviewedat “ena” thats a problemsthatean becehd through wore precise and eigorovs methods They en sees fully be thought ot as reset taper: genes ty ae ist ta lnchavioral approach lf athe shan inherent in he interview They reul from the arunypions ofthe behavioral spose to Jncersiewing, not from problems faced by al incivals in take ing wit and understanding one anciher. The problem in ‘luue. for example, variation acre interviewers, vanelsiiy or coding, and the sinbiguities sme posible spoigusnes of "elaionships among variables. Typical eller del with ther Include, respectisely systematic mtervioner raining progres elaborate coding manvals, and complex mukivavitestacniea Saale, Tam not mounting a8 argument against rigor and pledsion in vesennch. Sophisticated, echnical methods ae integal ey ‘iwc study: Cam proposing, however, tha the idesprend sew of interviews a5 behasoral evens leads tothe Uetitoon of crtain probleme 4 technieal shen the problens goss moc deeper: Technical solutions are applied wifey. they he came routine practice, andthe presuppositions that underlie {he approach remain unexamined. The sense of precision por ‘vided by these methods is llasory because they tend to elncure ‘athe than illuminate the central problem in the interpretation of inerviews, namely, the relationship between discus snd ‘meaning One conseqence of the behavioral approach isthe ahuose ‘oral neglect by interview researchers of work by stents of language on the rules, forms and funedons of queMions se espouses. There exists a respecable and instructive body ot Uheoretial and empirical work on thee topic by philosophers of language, linguists, soilinguis, anthropologists an ss viogiss. Dillon (1981), for example, reemuy compiled a pe Himmary bibliography of ever” two. hundeed tiles ow {questioning asa form of speerin, puning patcutar enlists on sues in education and om the interactive functions of gece ions Is list iades ony 2 hand of reports Irom the se tensive literature in survey and opinion research, and in tora this Tneratre, which focuser on diferent probiens, rarely re {ers to work on questioning in liguiscs and socoinguaines eres this opie has grosea over the past decade and a ‘umber of social scientists have explored lingusve nna conver ‘oe iouym Ut as Fesearen lalrogeme, generated by the un Standerd Pracce 13 sational voles that apply co questioning and answering in natu ‘ally occurting conversation. Goffman (1570), for example, examines linguistic and socal constraints in conversion gre the differences between replies and respooter, Fanshel (1877) elaborate a formal tot of eo fequests and their vatianis, with quesions as one pe ot res quest, Miser (1875), 1978) shows systematic repeavines succesive chains of questions and answers, Schegolt ied see (1978) and Sacks, Scheglom, snd Jelferion (19TH) develop ihe oncept of adjacency pairs for the shuation where & sora speaker's uiierances ate tied to and comtngent iy paniceae ‘ays to. frstspeakers ulerances, 3 conversational aucune oF hich questions and answers are one important biype, Balen (1983, 1988) and Frake (1988, 1977) discuss the utes ond pre ems of format questioning procedures in edhmograae held retearch in other cultures, “This brief and nonincasive fis isnt the generalisation made above t Tabor and es for leguimate tended only to document there is 3 teious and sub al taiion of theory and eezearch om questions ad ane ‘ot tepresented inthe dominant approach imertcerceach Except for the few reports on wrvey research noted ty each of ‘hens, there san slmos total lack of overlap betwees Dillons (1981) bibliography and the entenve biographies incluso in recent books summariing audes of questions sod aonseie in survey interviews by ietra and van der Zouven OQ3) ed by Schuman and Preser (1981) Phe relive oa eles ot linguistically erieoted theoretical and ermpivcal work oo quer ions and anavers by intetigators inthe surecy sense a tion dicey reflec the definition adopted by te at he interview a5 a behavioral event as 3 ‘han 352 speech evertaher wy, acneourss A seed assumption of the standard approach in interview research, cloily linked to is behavioral Was. se rebanee on the simulustesponse paradigm of ihe experimen aerate forconcepualaaton ofthe interview precerand commen, for speciation of tisues for research Brenner (1982°y 13) fexpheilyinvober this model sv vee bal interchange, rather arch framework in his ee sit ‘G3LISIHONd ATLOMRILS 81 DNIAdOD G3ZIMOHLNVNA ANY “TVRIELYW LHORAdOD GaSNaaNT SI ast ‘sono aiuies Us HE HOE OF hte Meners andthe “rules of viewing: "I is useful, if only heuristically to tink of he ‘questonaniwer process i the survey intview in einai esponise rms. The imvalus-responsesalopy ie socal be faute the only’ oljective of survey tmervcwing vonsees ay obtaining respondents verbal reautions to the quests pat to then, these mestng patcuoe response requseorens ed ty the questions” By specifying the ahjaive ns ebsining esha teactions," Brenner makes explicit the connection bersecn he simulus-tesponse motel of imerviening and the Baloo seine assumption. Brenner then draws implietons fans tak se ee 4 pombe, request the sandaedaion of he yom suite To Les ine ineriews.trovderwiicine ects tha se inersiesing techniques sed do waa the aaseng ‘process ther than in ean of facing the complains ok measurement tens, adequne responses seoetey hich are contingent upon dhe quenont alae Alo sree 10 achieve relay and precision nthe naynis charac ae conducied ont ae prereqises for suing the aes ence of merviensinsernsof interviewer respondentinersteocy the imerviening technics must be determined aod toto ind, before the daa coletionconmaeneer igh, 13t-150 Sy and large, research on problems of the interview hasbeen framed shin ‘she stimutuseresponse paradign, implatc e ‘nce on its asuapstions ging the general dtetion a ony 20 generating the specific questions or study. The primer im ofthis esearch andl of seeonienvatont lor practic bance 20 it is to ensure, in accord seth Brenner’ proscninion tae equivatenee of inierviews in terme af irerisees cones teraction." Because the "stuns" is a compuand one, son Singin interviewer plus question it not serprsng eed the majority of studies diteced to two general questions Hoe are respondents! answers inlycced by the form and wonding questions? and How ate they inllvenced by itereowe eet he inten of these studies ig to find ways to staiardize the stimulus oF. peshaps a beter term, to newraiee Wo take sponses may be interpreted clearly and unequivocaly, They, the ain ito ascertain responslent#“tre™ opinions sed vo aie mize posse distortions an biases in responses that nay yee from question or inteviewer variables that interfer ne spondents' abies oF wishes wo express their “rea” oy “tne ‘ews. Such potentially confouneling variables include, for ee ample, whether a question in plated in negative or posses terms, the number and piaenent of alternative responee eve, fori, the sequential order of question, and pavtteine seca unibutes expectations, oF atitudes of interviewers Distr and van der Zouwen (1982.3), who refer to thisas the general problem of "response effects,” note atthe cone concer of interview esearch is with “distortions becuse of the effects of improper variables, that is, variables other than the respondent's opinion, et. thatthe researcher i inerested in {oa similar vein Hagendars and Heinen (1983, p. 92} reviewing studies of the effecs on responses of selected intersieuer socal shhaacteistes, state that “Une main feature of the veginaces ‘esponse that willbe of interests response bias theailcreres between the registered score andthe true score This s noc he place to deal the fnings ofa large number of sues: several recent reviews serve this purpose-for emer ple, Cannel, Miller, and Olaenberg (1381), the’ papers my Dijatra and vam der Zovwen (1982), and the monograph ty Suman and Preier (1981. However is germs fo tn. argument to asess in broad terms the ne raul ofthe une oy investigative effort, The following generalizations wnrraned. belive, 25a statement ofthe let! of understanding thes ie een achieved regning the sffece of mir sioner ant ques variables some vatiales, and perhaps allo them, have seve tlfecs on some, and perhaps all types af response ules soe «conditions. Or, restated insomenhat different tenmrenchonns lus variable suedied may influence some featured of 3 sn Ponse dhe magnitude and seriousness ofthe ele being 6 function of various contextual lactone, "his a disturbing conclusion, al the more 40 becuse such 6st 2 setemient could have Been wie prior to wnadertaking the Stes. Further, the conclusion ad the findings st i reiets tareloolecie mnplieations for she design of any parocuer study beeause the posible relationships between sulos and fesponse variable have to Be determined separately in each Tamanate that thisisa harsh and sweeping generalization 1 svay be mitigated to some extent by the abvervation that many investigators arrive at snr conclusion, although thy often pace it the more postive contest of the evident ed or ‘expressed leah hy Presser (1983) in his recent esay reve of tice books on Survey eetearch methodlogy and practic, i ‘luding she Dykstra and van der Zouwen (1882) colon cited here. Pessr, coauthor of anther major study (Schuman ad reser. 1981), teins more optimiatic view than T do aboot the potential vai of ucvey research, but his comments ae full agreement wih the argument Ihave advanced here teissuiking though how hl inenced most survey pace is by tis accumuled bnowdedge: The pel weve) conduc In ignorance or cstegad of methodological findings "Tobe gin wih, methodlogesl cars semen) produces onietng finaings ot fnngsaithetetoinerpner Ths sre, or anes ot sti af the eferenes hetneeu ape dagree ad forced. {aie question formats In may eter area, datclecion ise have not been subjected to moch systematic inquiry Final, methodologial reach semen press resus tat lave no clea implzaton for practice ineaning eat bythe order ofthe questions sas wh mony eabes demons it of eomex eect pine to thesmporianee af contest sow any prea gute for ondceng survey hows (yp Gar) ea (1984), in an essay review of thice different books re posting findings of withitsuevey exper imema om ey Ode fems'35 question order ‘and question Form, incuing. the Shuman and Presser (1981 study discussed below. arrives 3 ‘conclusion that echoes my own ahd Presser's about the limited ‘alue of such studies for tevearch pracee: *Perhape she host {% important conclusion to be drasen from dhe thtee bookie at the answers to questions often depend om question farm sd respondent understandiog. Consequently siesta inter. sted in asessng the impact of question form and eaponden Understanding need co conduct their own experiments wai survey (p. 37) Given the extent and seriousnes of these problems—the ann biguity and often canteaditory nature of findings fron meth cdelogical studies and the lack of any general guidelines that ‘would apply across diferent suudieswe can more emily wo \erstand why research reporcs snd seview eusays ave perraded bby"on the one hand, on the other hand” ocutions, shy caution isexpressed about drawing Gres conclusionsor overgeneraitng (om the data and why interpretations ate wrapped in yersof «qualifications. Thus, DeLamater (1982), rominarizing Sndings on he effects of variations isthe wording of questions directed to the same topic, eemarke “It maybe incorrect to tisk hat is possible to have alternative wordings of the same ens Any change in wording can change the meaning of the question Whether two items are equivalent should be ested aba que tion 10 be answered. analytically, using techniques tach at ‘tert correlations, factor analyse, and analyses whith cut ‘on substantive relationship involving exch tem (p23) Neng the absence of “systematic” effects, hati, generel effects that hold across surveys and content aves, he peints co the sigh cance of contestual rlationshipe "The available research does hot find systematic effect of ether interviewer or respondent characteristics. When such person variables are relate! to re sponses, it is primarily in imeracion wih partcslar Yes of "questions or characteristics of the data collection situaton” (p. 38) Molenaar (1982) concludes i smae vein vegarding varia: ‘ion in question wording’ "Moreover, hardly any experiment gies a deelsive answer ab {0 which of the question-eordings Involved is move valid. Thus, also the direct practical wy Sf any generalizing statement may be sito be fany vested that icdoes not consivute practial guidelines for framing que sions” (p. 51), Reviewing the effec of differences in thelr of an st ‘CALIGIHONE ATLOMIS SI ONIAdOD G3ZRIOHLAYNN ANY “WRESLYW LHORAdOD G3SNIIIT SI Sesponseaesnatves, Mofcoaay assests “the eects Sill saiy with he content of the questions and watrane nae f ot the ated (othe eliets of d ating alert)" Sina. math rene tie as compared with nontvceine ees ons, he ates: “he elfecs of direcive quesvontinns oe ee, responses, ccm to be dependent for example, on chars {cunics ofthe respondems the content andthe cover ‘question eancermed tp 3) Tete ciaions could easly be enukipted, bt itmayhe more ‘aslo consider in some deal aparula examinees {etarding which “data cllecion issues have nox bees sobs ‘yatematic inquiry” (Preser, 1989, p. 639) Brceee (1982) conducted one ofthe few studies that drecenrea though the analysis of tape-recorded inlesiews, oheaen actually ask the questions onthe merece eek Exact esioning is cental tothe base vequreneer aaa ne lions weve asked as required. Thus in alk tiv eee, ta survey, that respondents were Frequently dot precio equisaient stimali™ (p. 150). Brenner's high percentage of noneyuivalence is similar to levels reported in thee other studies. Bradburn and Segaes (0979) fo cre ahcred by interviewers. Can na that more thas one thd ofthe questons ing, HN Lavson, and {Haws (1078) casted inteviewer behaviors wigs eee fntegories a8 acceptable or Unaceepabheg i vega tobe Ve nine degree of “corres” in questions mhel, mean oy caning of the question. They report, “prom teste quarters of the atisty was acceptable, ands moesie fon Hegde unaceepable"(p. 83). Thee nuhorsalorenet a, ales study oftheir ox in which “tape recordings hoced 30% of the qursions weve not soked 3s inte Sed 90 ee heved sulficieny 0 destroy compnrabitay" 4) Bea Doe er and Cannell and co-workers alto find © high depos of ong mtersewers andthe latter group sue Sepane iltiwer Final ina areslny weldecpend eee Iain othe sext™ fp. 4h Ds, ce Se eam St der Zatven (1989) found a eae one seh ose “in oie words in total. O’s sequen Ie eine ora Breer (982, p16) concades that ings pine 3 semen shining pte Ths wh ae Pa chifctaeyrecathimeler pacers eine i ‘eich commonly sine Inomng heen ke ‘utter by noting he aay of gee Se that i of decrmining how representing he badone e “Ge he complet sie of ened uaa ae reipondeninraciona rowinesuiveysenehra chen impo to anwer egos “Thos nies ae bse onthe perforrace of experienced and Welitsined interviewers in crellyseagoed eae der te decion af eonpeen inenigurs He ae Wy tothe prem wos beta to as a teak I sated eat: Oretanon Cen en fone finns i the ne aacoleinn eens / teflecs the relatively tata absence of studies of mersever een formance. Wal the exception of rare “held experimen ake those noted abore, the key astumption of the suman vesponee Paradigm—ihat.the questions asked are standardited and ren I 1 sen he "ame" stim forall responsi The results are no more encouraging to confidence in the suri interview asa method when we ern to features that have been studied. Molenaar (1982, pp. 81-82), for exemple in his review cited earlier of studies ofthe “Tormal” characters of ‘questions, concludes that seh tegard to “wording varintons “Wacems that nearly every ype dacs have ellevs wo tome Ue sree the available data indicate thatthe effets for related Phenomena) of some wording variables tendo be fait se temati (ldhough the variation inthe sata quite Megehs te ‘ifs of sme oer variables seen to be 98 Jet rates conde \ioned ad less straightforward, Whether he elfect ane ys tematic or not. the basic fact tha wordingelecs do ecear oo Alarge see” His conclusion, wth she vague md sndetsninnany Phasings "ic seems that,” "to some degiee.= “eens tobe yo, Feat ms the general astertion sith which I began this secon, namely that sone variables, and perhaps of them, have sone effects on some, and perhape conditions types response under some The venion thst Molensae and other reviewers find ide to arrive at firmer and les vague conclusions ean te more fully tnierstood and appreciated sf we examine the fandings of Particular study. Selman and Prescr’s 1981) monograph faa ‘seal and instructive source of guidance for addressing thie problem. Their series of studies of question wonding sod gue tion order ae elegant and extensive, and they ae julicous ane ‘utious inter observations and conclusions abe hls work and that of others, Their report har aleady Veen hale = “laste text” and as “exennpary” (Beta, 1984, . 35) They be sin by noting the deine or interes i ihe elles om eetponses ot hw questonsare worded: "Uy the early 19502 uch aoe ‘wording experiments had largely disappeared from nsjr suns S218. Our present research returns tothe quesuon-vording experiment af Four slecades ago" (pin ea) Wit repatd co quesion-order elles Schmid Presser (28817 remark shat shey did wot ial believe thatthe ot feels would be important and! they en beteng tho hey Ro ot pervaive. "Dat they are cleaty more common, greater in ‘wagnitude, and more varied in dttcion tan we had thonghe and they constitute a serious problem for aeveye and ont portant complication co our own esearch” (305), Referring tm general othe problem of coment elec tow the aver ing of acsions ae respontesinftoenccs anaes toindhadeal items—they sate that "ts necestary only to nda the ke hood that some of our methodological retultarecosungent on content waysthat ate not vibe rave visible ony nite fee ‘of contradicory findings. The whole effort to gene sous ‘weston form must tually pretend that cach quetion cas oe ‘owed in polation, butof course this it mcorreet fp 908) hood they proceed witha qualification that is by nom afr eo faders of this book, by obreving thatthe fedingr presented Gn question warding doughout their book “epee ie sli tunknown way (p. 803) on context effects Fins. they reer the dfcukies of research on these topics to the iaheren prob tem of language and meaning: "Las, bt hardy leat she foe that langosge snot a et of formal dass or boxes but ‘evn in which we exit. Thus every temps to design experiments that deal with generic question form es fn the Face ofthe fact that every quenion © unique. Expesments on form sek wo draw generations from a mater tht ress seneralizaton, that particular and pas and seamles This say well be the greatent obstacle of a (pp, 310-3t1) These observations about language and the uniqueness of ach queition are fully contontat ih THe rigs dteloped ‘RETO Ti sinus response model and of ather suumpwoes af he standard approach interviewing, Unfortunacly. seh ‘nan and Presser arsine at this postion only athe end a thes ‘esearch; their work i not informed by tis undersandong Fore, dhcir recommendations for survey pracice sud ade ‘onal sedis remain bound within the wadivonal model that the iden of a standard Spur is canercal ad tha the quest for “equivalence of interviews in terms of iuertcwes respondent interaction” miadieced and bound tf. The ‘question answer format gues and organizes the dacourse of ad isis ‘A3LIGIHOUd ATLORILS SI ONIAdO G3ZAIOHLAWNN ANY “IWRIALVWN LHORAdOD G3SNIO! tnrerviene)s and vepondeis, but they ae lng ange a / “behaving” ae sisnlersendersand responce ee seneralmpeience as language vers and notin ines Ing "shill" or techniques hat onderlcr an in.is type of ral Charani (1935), one of the great pioneers of suvey re “IEEE understood that vaviabiiy ia hastnterieses ca ce Hons the key to god interviewing and nots poblen solved bystandardieation He secommendsnatite than appears abilities to engage ‘which ito adap "the pauern ef Soe pattern of the Eyperence of ther the an radional opinion for gues eke eae aie ay for all ripondets ead Ne gay es a rather lose and liberal handling ot qeeaeonnene ee sae wraing” nF Princple would require tapesvcsgig imervins so tha the meanings” ofthe que oe oS sillesertinterieners could be determined see hana duel sues ave ave “pl aon tthe behavior bis and the stnulasespnse ‘noel discuned shove woether ssumpionee he ees ch othe inteiew merit separate commen a at sugeved by Shuman and Presta atneraon ieee that ems to generale about question fr “ieee sk be vewed i laion= They, tects of question order bes ‘omeststiping procedure and snvesigatons-fretea ae s Jariey of contents that aff the inten pene ‘As shecurp away the stetne and fon Sth linserven researchers tend also 19 isolace ‘ ct an A his is usually inns aru assumptions, and eujcay of reauppnuit from both bread cultural and local subculoral norm and framecorks of messing. Risman and Benney (1955, 1886p dineciors ofthe ealy ad now rarely ced Imevvew Proje the Univeisiy of Chicago, mate ihe seu obsertecon wee stead of interiewing is dependent onthe spread ofthe ec in temper.” They suggest that interviewing requres ihe ae elopment of a culate with a high degree of maidens, beineen persons and diflereniation within society sed os that i would not be posible if wedi noc have medecucbineod ‘ouventons governing the mecing of strange I860. 8 soy Benney and Hughes (1956), ning thatthe daerieare felatively new kind of encounter inthe history of hare ini ons" 193), ater: “Where languaget are teodinnn eee

    You might also like