I love watching interviews with musicians online, and one of my all time favourite interviewers is a guy called Nardwuar, who has a notoriously unique way of interviewing his guests. In the most impressive and mind boggling way, he does in-depth research on his interviewees, gathering information which he then reveals in the interview through half finished statements he prompts his guests to respond to. This is then followed up with Nardwuar either asking them a related question or presenting his guests with gifts that are tied to deeply personal interests and or/experiences the interviewee has had. Whilst this is amusing and a wonderful way to learn about the interviewee, it isn’t a method that would be appropriate for my SIP, due to the leading nature of the questions and bias towards steering the conversation in specific directions. Regardless of this, below is an example of this incredibly interview magic….
Although I won’t be mimicking Nardwuar’s interview technique, watching some of his videos got me thinking about texts I read by Alvesson and the different approaches to conducting an interview.
In the paper Alvesson discusses the different techniques that can be used in an interview, highlighting that there is also a question of ethics to consider with regards to how one might interview someone, where this might happen and the nature of the questions being asked. In my context, as a lecturer, it is important to consider the relationship between myself as the interviewer and the interviewee’s who will be students I have taught. I want to create as comfortable an atmosphere as possible when interviewing my students, and the quiz is an attempt to dismantle a sense of formality and hierarchy between myself and the students, but after reading this article I was also aware that I had to consider how the perceived power dynamics of lecturer students might impact how students answer my questions. As stated in BERA Ethical Guidelines For Educational Research, “Trust is a further essential element within the relationship between researcher and researched, as is the expectation that researchers will accept responsibility for their actions.”
I’ll be conducting the interview in a digital space, so with this mind I decided to create rules of etiquette, that would be outlined at the beginning of the interview. I want to create a safe digital space that offers support to those I speak to and creates a sense of mutuality with regards to respect, consideration of the other and an understanding of reciprocity. By using an agreement of etiquette I am able to create an agreement about the terms of my behaviour and intention for the interview, whilst also asking the interviewee to join me in this space, knowing that they will be met with empathy and respect. These rules would be followed by an omission from myself that I’m not speaking to the students as a lecturer, or from a position of ‘power’. Instead, I’m speaking with them as a researcher, a practitioner, and as a student who is engaged in a study that hopes to understand more about the practice of citation in a students time studying. I will clearly state that I am there to listen, learn and share, in the hope that this will start the interview off with a tone of openness and collaboration.
Another thing to consider amongst this, is the interview techniques I might use. Alvesson talks about Neo-positivist, romantic and local interview techniques and I intend to use a combination of the Neo-positivist and romantic methodology. Neo-positivism creates a sense of structure and a clear motivation for the conversation, focusing on a clear outcome for the discussion, which in my case will be to learn about the students’ relationship to citation, and the romantic technique allows for the discussion to have nuance and to evolve in a way that is collaborative and emphatic to the situation of the person I’m speaking to, which will allow subjectivity and to become a part of the discussion. Combining these two methods will allow me to create an interview that is focused in its design, but is open in its exploration of the questions I intend to ask.
With all of this in mind I compiled a trial list of questions to use in my interview on citation, and I tried them out on two of my fellow PGCert students in the most recent workshop. Unlike our friend, Nardwaur, all of the questions were open ended and were designed to encourage the participant to respond in a way that wasn’t led by my biases or expectations.
So they understood the nature of my SIP, I explained the context for my project with my peers by sharing information about the Afrotectopia video that featured three female producers, singer/songwriters, DJ’s citing Toni Morrison in a live musical performance. This created a point of relationally between me and my peers with regards to how I’m investigating anti-racist and inclusive alternative citational practices and we were able to have a discussion about their experience of citation as lecturers and practitioners. Below is an excerpt from our discussion around what Lauren and Ching-Li think about the word citation, and both refer to the musical citational practice I used to give my project context, and how this compares to more familiar ideas of citation…..
lauren – it takes you out the norms of looking stuff up, sharing things, it removes itself from that and becomes a really stuffy old thing, set ways of working. if you open it up like you’re doing students can see it doesn’t have to be that rigid and scary, it’s about doing it in a way that’s not scary
ching-li – it’s just about making it more accessible. even cite right*, it’s not inspiring in any way, and even that’s really rigid. you’re not starting from a place that’s very fluid or gives you any opportunities to expand your knowledge. the world’s changed so much, how can this not have changed.
lauren – share information that you’re interested in and students can share things, student led and you connect with some things they’ve said, build on the conversations and connections. it’s more like a conversation
ching-li – i agree with lauren. it’s part of a conversation, it’s sharing knowledge. it’s the basic human need to share things with each other. when you say the word citation it makes it seem more academic and serious, but really it’s just sharing and passing information on. it’s a way of indicating who you are through these things.
This rich commentary allowed me to have a better understanding of how my questions may or may not prompt oppurtunities for students to talk openly about a range of topics relating to citation and their positionality. Below are examples of the questions I asked Lauren and Ching-Li.
What were you interested in when you were growing up?
Are any of the things you were interested in when you were younger visible or cited in your practice now?
What/who do you cite?
Why do you cite these things?
Do you cite things outside of this? If so, what and why/why not?
Do you see a relationship between your positionality and how you cite?
When Ching-Li was asked to speak about her positionality, she was incredibly open and shared how her Chinese heritage played a role in her experience of growing up in Australia, and this lived experience plays a role in how she approaches teaching.
“i always have it in the back of my mind, you need to read the room to see what students you have and make sure that you’re speaking to those people, cos i know what it’s like and everything in australia is so white, there’s no diversity at all. so in my work i try to include a good mix of everythings and make sure everyone’s addressed in what im talking about”
This generous response encouraged me to understand the benefit of combining a structured Neo-positivist and romantic approach to my questions. With Neo-positivism and romanticism I’m able to approach the interview, as philosopher Gadamer would put it, as a form of “play”. Although I am using the structure of a set list of questions, I’m also creating a space for dynamism, in the sense that the romantic interview technique allows me to be responsive instead of didactic, and responding to the students in the moments that’s being created by the interview makes the discussion one that is alive, and a form of play.
Another thing that was discussed with Ching-Li and Lauren, was where the interview would take place. As we see with Nardwuar and Young Thug, an impromptu conversation with the interviewee in transit isn’t the ideal way to have a meaningful interaction, so I have used this trial run to finalise my plans for the set up of the interview. I will be conducting my interview digitally, so I’m able to share content (information sheet, agreement, quiz) with students prior to the interview itself. Working digitally allows me to create a time scale that allows the participant to familiarise themselves with the research question and introductory material (flow chart quiz) in order for them to understand the parameters of the interview, whilst managing their busy schedules as students. This also gives them an opportunity to ask questions or make requests that make the experience as comfortable and enjoyable as possible, prior to the interview.
Following on from this (based on Alvesson’s questions of how to conduct an ethical interview) I also considered how to monitor the accuracy of the information gathered from the interview, and decided to give students the opportunity add further commentary on the questions asked during the interview by sharing the transcripts. It was important to give the students an oppurtunity to review what was said in order to allow them to represent themselves as sincerely and as accurately as possible.
*a website that offers resources that help students cite
**** Updated on 22nd December
In earlier parts of this blog I outlined that I would be using a combination of neo-positivist and romantic interview methods, but after presenting my project to fellow PGCert students and my tutor there was a discussion about the nature of using a neo-positivist/romantic approach to interview my students, as positivist thinking operates within the realm of creating and considering a hypothesis instead of investigating a question (which is what I’m doing). As it is my intention to use interview questions to create an open and fertile discussion with my participants, I’m purposely avoiding the use of a hypothesis as a basis for my research because it’s important that the interview is an oppurtunity to learn from the students in as much of a non biased collaborative discussion as possible. Further research in interview techniques has helped me realise that I have instead been using a semi-structured method to create a conversation with the students I’ve interviewed. As detailed in the following description of what a semi structured interview is, Glynis Cousin states, ‘Semi-structured interviews are so-called because the interview is structured around a set of themes which serves a s guide to facilitate interview talk. Unlike the structured interview, the interviewer is expected to adapt, modify and add to the prepared questions if the flow of the interview talk suggests it.’ This is a perfect description of how I have designed my interview questions, in the hope that as a result the interviews create a space for responsive and engaged critical dialogue.
It’s important to consider how using a semi-structured interview space to gather information requires the gathering and interpretation of information, which can present problems when considering how to do so without instances of misunderstanding, misinterpreting, clashing with or coercing my interviewees. As Alldred and Giles say, the interview is ‘the joint production of an account by interviewer and interviewee‘ and this creates what Cousins describes as a, ‘ “third space” where interviewee an interviewer work together to develop understandings.’ With this in mind it is important to emphasise my interest in/the importance of creating a safe dialogic space with the students I’m interviewing. My terms of etiquette and practice run with Lauren and Ching-Li helped me to consider the practical means of how to plan/carry out the interview and there is a much needed emphasis on meeting my participants where they are, in order to create a reflective and safe discursive space.
It is my hope that combining a critical paradigm framework with a semi-structured interview will enable the interview to create a conversation that is focused on critically engaging with the student’s knowledge and lived experiences both within and outside educational settings. This will enable both myself and my participants to consider how these experiences impact their relationship to/knowledge of citation and how these things might impact their studio practice.