interviews conducted in the realism (more structure) and phenomenological approach (less structure). Less structure and involving interpretation into interviewing process is also ascribed to the interpretative approach (Malhotra & Birks, 2007) and phenomenology (Kvale, 1996), but mainly as compared with positivist approach.
KEY POINTS
While planning issues to be discussed during interview, the researcher should obtain answers of key importance for the theoretical model. The answers should be gathered in an open way to enable spontaneous reactions. If some issues are not covered spontaneously by the participant, the topic guide should indicate what to probe. The level of structure depends on many circumstances including the approach of the researcher and the level of knowledge in a given matter, the respondent type. One may recognize the pros and cons in case of both unstructured and structured interviews. The interviewer may be rigorous in the approach (e.g., more structure in the positivist approach) or may react fl exibly to obtain answers for all objectives.
More about relation between the philosophical and epistemological approach and structure of interviewing can be found in the text by Alvesson & Ashcraft (2012) and in the book by Malhotra & Birks (2007).5.3. Facilitation of natural process through group
dynamic management
To develop topic guide and then to conduct the interview smoothly it is very important to understand the cognitive, emotional and social processes that may took place in a interviewee’s mind. Both in the literature on group processes, on qualitative interviewing and in research practice, one may observe that the process of revealing information is related with group dynamic (Goodyear, 1998; Schneider-Corey & Corey, 1997; Stewart et al., 2007; Styśko-Kunkowska & Grzesiak-Feldman, 2012) and that the fl ow of interviewing should fi t to the stage of group development (Goodyear, 1998). Although the issue of group processes is mostly arisen in the literature on focus group interviewing one may observe similar processes in practice of one-on-one interviewing (according to some group theories even two persons constitute a group if they meet additional criteria as common aim, norms, structure and feeling of individuality (Mika, 1984).
To understand the participant’s perspective, imagine that it was you who was invited to participate in the interview on the participation in decision processes
in the organization you work at. Among other things, the recruiter said something about the confi dentiality and recording, but you don’t remember exactly what. It is a new situation for you. You are wondering how to behave in these new circumstances, what type of questions will be asked and what type of information you may reveal. You are entering the research room. You feel a little tense and nervous, but you try to behave as a self-confi dent person. You listen to the words of the researcher very carefully to understand what is going on and how the best you may present yourself and your company. Your fi rst statements are very concrete or – in contrary – you try to say as much as possible to show yourself as a cooperative person. You are ready to reveal information that is easy and publicly accessible.
Such a state of mind is typical for the beginning stage of group dynamic. People feel tense and uncertain because of new circumstances. Participants may express these feelings by many different ways: some of them don’t talk too much, while others are very talkative and willing to ask many questions to the interviewer, some may try to emphasize their superiority in a topic. Mostly, participant(s) do not show externally the tension (although the attentive observer may notice signs of it). At this stage the interviewer seems to participant(s) someone in “a better position”, who has control and knows more about the fl ow of the talk and – similarly as a teacher at school – who will ask questions. But they also need to understand the rules of this new situation. That’s why one of group dynamic models calls this stage as “orientation and dependability
stage” (Jedliński et al., 2008). To conduct the interview fl uently, the interviewer
should lower the level of uncertainty, focus on building the atmosphere of
security, to accustom participant with a new situation and to equalize the positions. The good interviewer also understands that at this stage people will
not share their in-depth feelings or beliefs, and they need some time to build up a rapport. For this reasons, a typical approach to start is a short introduction
of the rules of interviewing: who is conducting a study, what for, how data
are going to be used, about confi dentiality (or the level of confi dentiality) and recording, the unstructured fl ow of the talk and appreciating all types of comments (no good and bad answers). Even if the interviewer repeats the same information as during the recruitment stage, it is worth building up a good relationship. Additional benefi t of this procedure is that it helps participant to take root in a new situation and stop thinking about other everyday tasks. Then, a typical approach is to gather narrowly defi ned factual individual information with direct questioning – a name, current position, main tasks on this position or tasks related to the topic (relevant to the research aims). Saying something “easy” and “unthreatening” about themselves may help to conquer one’s fears and focus on own experiences in the given fi eld. Additionally, the interviewer has an opportunity to ensure the appropriateness of recruitment and understands better the background of further participant’s statements.
5.3. Facilitation of natural process through group dynamic management
After these narrowly defi ned questions in the introductory part of the interview, the interviewer starts the main part of interviewing with direct broad
and open-ended questions about experiences referring to issues under
consideration (Perry, 1998). The topic should be easy for participant and the best if it refers to experiences, e.g., “what is the story of your experiences in management” or aspects of knowledge that are easy to retrieve, e.g., “what are your fi rst associations when I say ’European Union funds’?” Most people feel safe and positive with their experiences, thus it should be the comfortable base
to facilitate their openness. Focus on experiences may also help participant to refresh the memory about the issues related to a topic. The open and rather broad question may also enhance the safety giving the participant a feeling of
control over the information being revealed. In the same time the interviewer has not only important data but also win a very good starting point for further
questioning: during further talk the researcher may refer to what was already
said. As some participant’s experience may be more important for the research objectives, whereas other topics may be not important, the research should include in a topic guide which issues should be explored more and what exact information about each of them are being looked for. Topic guide also should include instruction which issues should be explored even if they did not reveal spontaneously. Anyway, referring to the previous words of the participants is one of the techniques of “active listening” and of building up the rapport, as it makes the participant have a feeling of being truly listened to. As a whole, the presented order of issues should shorten the time that participants need to “open” themselves. If again you identify with the interviewee, imagine this further part of the interview. If the group dynamic was managed properly, in the beginning part of the interview the researcher dispelled your doubts about the idea of interview, he or she enables you to feel more comfortable than at the beginning and seemed really interested in your professional tasks and your experiences. Thanks to that you may feel comfortable to talk openly about your personal attitudes.
According to the group dynamic literature, when participants feel relatively comfortable with a situation of the interview and with a topic, they go to the middle stage of group dynamic – people start to be ready to express their
deeper thoughts without much caring about psychological and social risk, they are ready to reveal their true “self.” That’s why this phase of group
process is being called “differentiation” (Jedliński et al., 2008). This is time for more demanding tasks and more expansive aspects of interviewing (Goodyear, 1998), for instance for supporting techniques (see next section) or questions that go deeper into experiences of the participant. It is good to remember that improper management in the fi rst and second stage of the process may close the participant in a psychological sense, may cause his anger, impatience and even the “rebellion” against the interviewer. As research
on dynamic group process shows this type of confl ict reaction is normal if group process is unstructured and may be fruitful for some psychoeducational aims (e.g., self-development) (Jedliński et al., 2008; Schneider-Corey & Corey, 1997). But during the interview such a reaction is totally useless and rarely happens because good researchers focus the energy of participants on the “intensive work” and deepening of their experiences. Thus, during the topic guide development, to avoid negative aspects of group dynamic the researcher should predict that in the middle phase more demanding and more expansive tasks should be proposed to the participants.
How would you feel as a participant after that? You would probably be very involved with an interview; you would talk willingly and with a true understanding of your own points of view. In case of interviewing, the specifi city of the third stage is best descript by a notion “stage of intensive work” or “working
stage” (similarly as in case of psychoeducational trainings, Styśko-Kunkowska
& Grzesiak-Feldman, 2012). Participants are really involved in the interview, they fully understand their role and – at the same time – after refreshing and deepening of their experiences in the previous stages of the interview – they are
able to integrate the rational and emotional, overt and covert level of their experiences and opinions and they are ready to make truly constructive evaluation of issues under consideration. Thus, it is time for evaluation of existing and new ideas and processes (the opinions will be more insightful
than at previous stages) and – if needed – ideas of new proposition. Both second and third stages of the process give the best opportunity to gather the most important data. At the end of interviews, participants may be too tired to reveal key information, so some time may be devoted for gathering
information of less importance, e.g., contextual data (Maison, 2010). Finally
– to end the interview smoothly – the researcher may ask for conclusions with overall evaluative comments, summary and – if necessary – reconciliation of inconsistencies (Goodyear, 1998).
One may ask how much time one should plan for each stage. In my experience, during one hour individual interviews with professionals, the introductory section together with warm-up section takes about 15 minutes. The proportions may vary depending on the topic and objectives, and on individual differences. However, the most insightful opinions and the greatest involvement one may observe after 30–40 minutes with a properly designed topic guide.
The whole process of parallel fl ow of group dynamic process and information is summarized in Table 5.5.
5.3. Facilitation of natural process through group dynamic management
Table 5.5. Coexistence of group and informational level during fl ow of the interview
Group dynamic
stage Issues to be discussed
Orientation
Introduction (aims and rules) Narrow factual information
Broad questions about experiences or easy to retrieve knowledge
Differentiation More demanding tasks and more expansive aspects of interviewing
Intensive work Evaluation of existing and new ideas and processes and – if needed – ideas of new proposition.
Final stage
Gathering information of less importance, e.g., contextual data overall evaluative comments, summary and – if necessary – reconciliation of inconsistencies Source: own elaboration.
KEY POINTS
During the development of the topic guide the researcher should remember not only about substantive goals but also about psychological goals related to group dynamic. The time for individual and group interviews is very short, so the researcher has to perfectly manage the group process by facilitating natural processes. On the psychological level, the researcher’s task is to accelerate the transition from one group dynamic phase to another.
• The plan of the interview should start with an introductory section, then go to narrowly-defi ned factual information and continue with warm up section about real but easy to talk experiences of the participant.
• In the middle stage of the interview the researcher should plan more demanding tasks and more expansive aspects of interviewing.
• In the “intensive work” stage the topics such as the evaluation of the existing and new ideas and processes, creation of new ideas.
• Finally, it is time for gathering less important information and for overall summary and comments.
When these general guidelines are replaced with concrete substantive issues, the general topic guide is ready. However, as mentioned before, such a general outline should be completed with specifi c questions for which the researcher wants to fi nd answers and techniques.
Some issues related to group dynamics in an interviewing process can be found in the book by David Stewart et al. (2007).