Interview strategy and ethics: Contemplating some real life issues

Jayanti Basu
Department of Applied Psychology
Calcutta University

By Interview strategy I mean the deliberate consideration of the predefined approach to

interview process per se, as well as the inevitable ‘accidents’ and unforeseen awkward
situations arising in most real life interviews. The solution to the latter may not be pre-
designed, but entails an orientation and approach to dialogue to another person. With greater
recognition of relativity and reflexivity in qualitative methodology, it is probably wiser to
begin with admission of biases, prejudices, exploitation and blindness, rather than feigning
neutrality. In this sense, any discussion on interview and exploratory survey needs to
adequately highlight these subtler nuances of dyadic dynamics.

At the same time, one must not forget that every research and interview thereof entails
an element of creativity, and hence a dose of serendipity also, as creative moments cannot b e
predicted. We have a pre-designed schedule of course, but in most cases the brilliance of the
results depend not on the predetermined aspects, but on the insight and modifications of the
items during the course of the interview. To handle this properly, one needs to have a strong
theoretical base of the subject matter as well as of the criteria of good interview.

The word ‘interview’ has been interpreted in various ways. Kvale (1996) regards
interview as a way of bringing together the multiple views of people. Schostak (2005) vies
interview as the space between the views, not the views themselves, but rather as the negative
condition under which people may express their views to each other and to themselves. In the
latter approach, interviewing is an experiment in the sense Rorscahch called inkblot testing an
experiment.

Some of the key issues to be remembered in interviews situation are: the power notion
embedded in the process, the mutual social position, values, trust, meaning of words,
interpretation and finally the uncertainty implied in any human interaction.

In an interview the following steps have to be designed, and the specific strategy for
each needs be decided and loosely defined. I emphasize the word loosely, because, in most
psychologically sensitive and open ended interview, the strategy actually changes from case to
case. The nodes at where the strategy has to be defined are as follow:

1. Access to people
2. Range of concepts of discourse, or theoretical perspectives
3. The problem profile – its historical and social nuances, physical aspects and legal
implications, if any
4. Recording the data
5. Representation of the experience of the research process and the experience of the
subject of research
 6. Analytic proceeding
7. Writing up

Some of the major difficulties in real life interview that cannot be truly taken care of,
specifically in a predetermined way, are: the reactions to questions which, unknowingly have
hurt the interviewee, socially or emotionally; unforeseen outcomes – good or bad or mixed;
transference-countertransference issues and biases greeted from it; and finally the emotional
reactions and change in self concept of the interviewer during and after the process (this
involves development of the interviewer as well).

The ethical issues need to take into account all these features. The usual techniques of ethics
are:

1. Confidentiality and anonymity

2. Prepublication access
3. Ethical guidelines to be framed
4. Ethical committees
5. Situated ethics

However, in real context the meaning of these words often get confounded, and it is perhaps
extensive experience and self critical view only that guides the researcher.