Broadly speaking, there are four types of interviews in social research: the structured interview, the semi-structured interview, the unstructured or focused interview and the group or focus interview (May, 2001). Through the extremes of structured to unstructured interviews, the researcher shifts from controlling the interview through predetermined questions, to an unstructured situation which allows the respondent the freedom to answer without feeling constrained by predetermined questions and a limited range of answers.
The method adopted here was somewhere in between these two extremes. The reason for this being that in this study, there were specific areas which I wanted to explore and it was essential to let people answer in their own terms and this can only result from semi-structured or unstructured interviews.
Structured interviews rely on a uniform structure and permit comparability between responses and thus are considered by many as yielding results that are strong in reliability. This is due to the fact that the same set of questions (in the form of a questionnaire) is asked of participants and differing answers are considered as being real. However, in this study, using this method would have not allowed the participants to speak in their own terms and interpret their everyday life through their own eyes. The standardisation of the
uniform structure of a questionnaire allows comparability between responses but in this study, the aim was to go as in-depth as much as the respondents allowed, so as to get to know the meaning respondents give to their music consumption patterns and discourses.
The semi-structured interview allows the respondent to answer without feeling constrained by pre-formulated questions with a limited range of answers and it also allows the interviewer to depart from the standard approach and to probe beyond the given answers (May, 2001).
The unstructured interview, at the other extreme, is characterised by its open-ended form. The interviewer has an aim in mind but interviewees are able to answer questions within their own frame of reference, drawing on ideas and meanings which they are familiar with. Through flexibility therefore focused interviews provide a greater understanding of the interviewee’s point of view. Some researchers, like Segert & Zierke, (2000) believe that this method is useful when researching ongoing processes of social change (ibid.) because the participants themselves are the agents of change and since change is an ongoing process, the tools used must be flexible to delve into dynamic processes which have no fixed parameters. Unstructured interviews are usually used when the researcher’s preconception is likely to be challenged because the interviewee is not limited to a set of questions but is free to talk about what is significant. These significant areas might be a challenge to the researcher in that the researcher might not even have considered these areas as being important.
Group or focus interviews have been used in a variety of contexts but are valuable mostly as investigative tools, allowing the researcher to explore group dynamics around the issues they want to research. Having a focus group of about 8 to 10 young Maltese women was not considered as valuable in this study, not even as an investigative tool, because although the mediator would encourage different viewpoints on the topic in focus, participants might still be influenced by the presence of others and might not answer questions in terms of their own experiences. One-to-one interviews were thus preferred so that interviewees would not feel limited to the topics others would be discussing. Moreover, they would not be overshadowed by participants who might be very vociferous. There are several forms of one-to-one interviews such as computer-assisted interviews, factual interviews, conceptual interviews and so on (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, pp.147- 158). In this study, one-to-one face-to-face interviews were the preferred tool for gathering data. In computer-assisted interviews such as e-mail interviews, which are asynchronous in
time and chat interviews, which are more synchronous in time and approach the conversational format of face-to-face interactions (ibid.), the body language is lost completely. Video interviews, on the other hand, such as using Skype, do capture the body language, and although different to face-to-face interviews are quite similar. Face-to-face interviews also eliminate any problems with writing and reading skills on both side of the participants and the interviewer. Although in one-to-one interviews, the participants might still feel that they should answer in a certain way because of my involvement in the music scene, as a classical musician and violin and piano teacher, the risk of participants being influenced by peers would be eliminated.
Since I myself as the researcher, in this study, was the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, reflexivity on my part, which I will discuss later in this chapter, was essential. The importance of being reflexive is acknowledged within social science research and there is widespread recognition that the interpretation of data is a reflexive exercise through which meanings are made rather than found (Mauthner et al.,1998). Sociologists, anthropologists and philosophers have been concerned with ‘the problem of reflexivity’ and how ‘our subjectivity becomes entangled in the lives of others’ (Denzin, 1997, p.27) for a long time. The ‘problem’ arises through recognition that as social researchers we are an integral part of the social world which we study. Thus representation is inevitably always ‘self-presentation’ and ‘the Other’s presence is directly connected to the writer’s self-presence in the text’ (Denzin, 1994, p.503 in Denzin & Lincoln).
As the researcher, I used my local knowledge and contacts in Malta’s music scene and selected the first interview subjects for this study. Since I myself had been a professional classical music performer and teacher for more than twenty years, I was familiar with the majority of classical musicians on the island, as well as quite a number of jazz, pop and rock musicians. Thus I was considered as an insider of the local music scene. For those who are affiliated to music other than classical genres, I was neither a true insider nor a complete outsider. In a way I was considered as an insider because I had a theoretical background of music and a history of performing. Yet, since my performing was limited mostly to the classical scene, that did not make me a true insider in other scenes. This insider-outsider relation together with my strong musical background and my performing reputation, resulted mostly in interviewees apparently being in awe of me, an attitude which I tried to change in the very beginning of each interview, since I did not want interviewees to tell me what they thought I would want to hear. I therefore tried to
make it clear that I was at par with them and was interested in their way of seeing things and giving meaning to music.
Both insider and outsider researchers impact on data. As Costley, Elliott and Gibbs (2010) pointed out, an inside researcher has many advantages but also has responsibilities. As an insider in the music scene, I was in a unique position to undertake the study at hand in depth, since I had the insider knowledge and easy access to people and information that could enhance that knowledge. However the subjective nature of researching as an insider where there may be lack of impartiality and an interest in achieving certain results raises problems concerning an objective view of data (ibid.) As an inside researcher, I was conscious that my own positionality in the context could have a particular impact on the data collected. Reflexivity, according to Mason (1996, p.5) requires thinking critically about the reasons why the researcher does what he or she does, challenging own assumptions and recognising the extent to which the researcher’s own thoughts, actions and decisions shape the methods of research and what the researcher sees in the research. This qualitative research involved active reflexivity and critical self-scrutiny on my part. I was aware that no researcher could be completely neutral, objective or detached from the knowledge being generated especially since I was highly involved in one specific music subculture, the classical scene. I was aware of my own ideas and pre-judgements as a researcher. Being aware of the pit-falls of pre-figuring the field was very important in choosing the first respondents, and undertaking the interviewing and data analysis processes.
Russell & Kelly (2002) contend that through reflection, researchers may become aware of what allows them to see, as well as what may inhibit their seeing. This required careful consideration of the project under study, as well as the ways in which my own assumptions and behaviour may be impacting the inquiry. Thus, being immersed for many years in the classical music scene, made me a known figure in that scene. However I had also been involved to a lesser extent, in jazz, rock and pop music through colleagues and performers, having taken part in a number of performances myself and having taken courses in jazz and improvisation. This made me very familiar with these music scenes. Through colleagues who made part of both the classical music scene and the more traditional music scenes such as the village bands and the ‘għana’, I was also familiar with how things work within this setting and the dynamics of these clubs.
During the process of the study I tried to be reflexive on at least three levels as suggested by Gilgun, (2010). The first level was that I made it a point to be reflexive on the topic I wished to investigate, meaning that I had to account for the personal and professional meaning the topic had for me. The second level was that I had to be reflexive in the perspectives and experiences of the young women I wished to research. The third level was being reflexive with regard to the audience at whom my research findings would be directed. This meant that I had to keep in mind to write in such a way and present ideas in such a way that could be understood by all. Apart from these three levels, since class and gender are two significant elements in this study, I needed to be reflexive about my own position in the social class strata of Maltese society as well as my own personal gendered ideas on the topic at hand.
I was very much aware that the complex processes of representing the voices of the respondents could not be simplified and represented as if the voices spoke on their own (Reinharz, 1992). On the other hand, I was aware that these voices would be represented through my choices of how to interpret them and which transcript extracts to use as evidence. I recognised the importance of being reflexive in my role in the analytic process, in interpreting data and in the pre-conceived ideas and assumptions I might have brought to the analysis (Devine & Heath, 1999). I therefore reflected on and recorded my interpretations, in a research diary, after each interview, going through my logs and revisiting them after each new interview was done. This enabled me to be reflexive about previous assumptions and experiences which might have hindered the way I analysed the data. This does not mean that the process is without reflexive limitations since there would still be influences which shape this research, such as my social position in the working class stratum. I have never had a different lifestyle, neither as part of the middle class nor as part of the lower class. This means that my perception is limited through a working class background.