4.1 Structuring an interview

A common way of proceeding when preparing an interview is to generate some sort of underlying structure. When wanting to describe an undescribed language, for instance, one could make lists of words and questions on vocabulary and either group these lists into different topical areas (animal names, furniture etc.) or link them to amusing stories or to people whom the interviewee is familiar with in order to draw the latters's interest (cf. Vaux 1999: 18; Crowley 2007: 106).

A further possibility is to put together a set of questions, such as Labov's famous danger of death questions (cf. 1972a: 93), and group them into modules. These modules must then be connected to one another by linking the last question of one module to the first question of the following one, thus resulting in a kind of conversational network. Such a network will ensure the conversation's natural flow, regardless of the informant's responses. One must first start by asking general and exploratory questions on the topic to see if the informant is interested. If this is the case, more specific and detailed questions must follow. The underlying idea is that the interview should approximate itself to a normal conversation with seamless shifts in topic and with the informant guiding the interviewer through the modules instead of it being the other way around. Obviously, this approach requires a certain amount of flexibility and openness to new experiences on the researcher's part (cf. Milroy 2001: 57-60, 65-68; Tagliamonte 2006: 38-39, 44-45).

An advantage of structuring an interview in advance is that the interviewer can avoid boring his/her informants to death while trying to think of good questions to ask. Also, spontaneous questions can be lengthy and unclear. Questions should ideally be asked in under 5 seconds. Another advantage is that by using the same (or similar) structure in interviews there will be a certain consistency and comparability throughout many interviews (cf. Milroy 2001: 57-60; Tagliamonte 2006: 47; Vaux 1999: 23).

Aside from the structured interview, the researcher can also opt to conduct a semi-structured or an unstructured interview. The semi-structured interview is a mixture of both structured and unstructured interviews. Some questions are prepared in advance (standardized interview schedule), while others arise in the course of the interview allowing for more flexibility. Although, the fieldworker may try to retain the set order of questions for each interview in order to compare between answers, he/she will be keen to pursue novel relevant information, as in general, he/she focuses on the interviewee's responses and largely lets him/her set the agenda. Usually the researcher determines a number of topics to be explored in advance, however, the manner in which these are ultimately treated very much depends on the informant's responses. Unstructured interviews are commonly used only within the scope of sociological studies and in fieldwork are very often conducted in form of an ethnographic interview (i.e. long-term participant observation). In some ways they resemble a more radical version of semi-structured interviews, as, although, the interviewer generally assumes a rather passive role, he/she might adhere to a very simple interview schedule nonetheless. The interviewee, appearing as the active subject, exceeds being a mere 'informant' and largely dictates what it is he/she wants to talk about.

Created with the Personal Edition of HelpNDoc: Generate Kindle eBooks with ease