b Some everyday topics of time-space compression: the interview process Repeat, in-depth interviews also hold a number of benefits in terms of the material

® Once again this clearly raises issues over the 'representativeness' of respondents involved in a qualitative methodology. But such methods necessitate working with respondents who are willing to talk and, though this may seem to 'bias' one's findings, the mode of validation is anyway rather different from that used within a quantitative methodology. It moves around the positionality of different respondents, and the interpretation is based upon the depth of experience that can be analyzed (see below).

gathered. In particular, where there is the potential for further meetings it is possible to return to issues discussed earlier, either to draw out the ambiguities and contradictions of certain understandings, to 'have another go' at a topic that the respondent, or interviewer, simply found difficult to articulate, or to continue a discussion that had proved emotionally difficult in another context. Moreover, as intimacy is generated, it is possible to move beyond a set of 'prepared' responses, to that 'private discourse' that often underlies everyday accounts (Cornwall, 1984).

In general, repeat interviews clearly allow for both a greater coverage of topics, and a more in-depth discussion of particular topics than is possible in the one-off or double interview. In my case it was decided, both in relation to the intimacy and 'difficulty' of the topics I wanted to deal with, and in terms of coverage, to conduct six sessions of approximately one hour each with each respondent, though this was flexible. Within this general format the interviews took a fairly traditional form. At the initial meeting I ran through the general aims of the research, and clarified both the topics I hoped to cover, and the commitment involved. Important here was a guarantee of attendance at all our sessions, and the provision of a nominal 'fee' (£5 for each meeting) helped formalize this 'research contract' - though a number of the respondents refused to be paid, or asked instead for a bottle wine or some other less formal token of my gratitude (cf Burgess et al, 1988a).

Next, it was vital to think through a series of topics with which each could relate their own experiences of time-space compression, without resorting to the kind of questions that all w ould have found unintelligible. For example, neither the respondents (nor myself) would have been able to answer directly a question asking 'whether one's traditional categories of spatial distinction are in a process of re-organisation', and yet it was exactly these issues I wanted to get at. Instead, therefore, I attempted to construct a series of 'examples' through which we could address these more abstract issues. In relation to presence and absence we talked about the consumption of 'foreign food', but also discussed each persons experiences of communication technology. Each example was chosen to inform upon a number of those theoretical issues I was concerned with tracing, whilst at the same time each session was structured such that all of these issues might be covered.

Within the course of each interview, and across the sessions, questions were organised in order to allow both the degree of intimacy, and reflexive difficulty, required for such questions to develop over time. The first session was primarily an introductory meeting, when respondents were encouraged to introduce themselves and talk through their general experiences of the local area (when and why they had moved there, and so

on). As well as providing a number of the nuts and bolts of the respondent's biography, these more 'neutral' questions are an essential means of developing trust between researcher and interviewee (Burgess, 1992a; Spradley, 1979).

The second session was then given over to a discussion of the respondents working lives, within which we tended to concentrate upon the changing experience of communication technology and especially time. In the third session attention turned to the whole notion of holidays, and overseas travel, but also the changing nature of everyday food - each discussion allowing for an interpretation of both spatial and temporal understandings. Where intimacy had now developed, in the fourth session I asked each person to bring along a 'favourite object' that they felt said something about themselves. This technique was originally envisaged to open a discussion on consumption. In the end this theme was not developed in the final account but, as is often the case, the technique drew out a number of quite unexpected developments (see, for example, chapter 7.3). In the fifth session we returned once again to the local area. In this discussion, understandings derived in previous sessions by the respondents themselves were related to their experiences of Stoke Newington. For example, having talked about their experiences of 'foreign' travel, we talked about how far in an area like Stoke Newington one still needed to 'travel', and whether such developments were a 'good' or 'bad' thing.

Having covered these substantive issues, the final session was given over entirely to 'termination'. Where considerable intimacy has been generated it is vital that both parties have an opportunity to 'disengage' (Burgess et al, 1988a & b). Just as at the beginning of each session I tended to review the discussion of the previous week, and at the end to remind the respondent of the topics of next week's discussion (each was also telephoned between sessions to re-confirm each meeting), so termination was talked about from the start of the interview process. The final session was thus given over to a general discussion of the interviews themselves - what each person had felt they had gained, or found upsetting, intrusive, or just plain 'difficult', and these discussions were as important to me (not least in organising meetings with future respondents) as to the respondents themselves.

But it is important to avoid the impression that all the interviews were organised in the same way. A semi-structured interview is, by its nature, a fluid system of intercourse. Just as each respondent tended to move at a different pace (such that where travel was discussed in the third session with some, it may have been the second and fourth with others) so too topics were constantly opened and returned to at different points. Further, in light of different systems of understanding, questions were put in

rather different ways with each respondent, coming back to issues of role playing in the interview process.

In this sense neither the questions, nor the sessions were standardized. Indeed with many the start of the last session was also useful for a final 'scramble' to deal with issues not yet covered. But each session was partially structured before-hand through the use of an interview 'guide'. The guide, a list of the various issues (with relevant examples) I wished to cover, acted as a kind of prompt. I tended to arrive at each meeting fifteen minutes early and religiously 'learn' mine before the interview started. The guide was useful because if issues were raised in a different order from that 'expected' it enabled me both to let the course of the discussion flow and make sure I covered all the issues I was concerned with. Each guide was prepared individually for each respondent, and reflected issues and concerns raised in other sessions and from which I wished to move on from, or return to. On it each 'question' was arranged so as to leave space for a number of possible interpretations, rather than to close down discussion (something that is more difficult than it sounds!).

The use of a guide also, of course, draws attention to the role of the 'interviewer'. There are clearly a number of standard techniques involved in a semi-structured interview (Burgess, 1992a). Just as the aim is to ask relatively 'open' questions, so it is important to achieve a fluid discussion, and one in which the respondent feels at ease to articulate their feelings in their own way. One technique is not to dive into the next question as soon as there is a pause in the conversation, but to 'read for silences'. Such silences may be the result of the respondent thinking through the question, or simply wanting to 'have another go' at answering it. The skill, that I am sure I did not entirely master, is to learn when to allow such pauses to develop, and when to move the conversation along.

To encourage the respondent's confidence it is important to appear open and empathetic, and never to give the impression that their answer is somehow 'wrong' (there can, after all, be no 'right' or 'wrong' answer). Even when you may be frustrated (they didn't 'understand' the question!) it is often important to allow the conversation to develop, as it may lead in directions you could not have anticipated and throw light upon exactly those issues you are trying to capture. In part this is an issue of 'body language' (making the appropriate nods and grunts) but it also requires the interviewer to take a stance upon their own level of 'participation' in the interview process.

In contrast to a more 'active' approach I tended to assume the role of 'silent interlocutor'. For example, I sought to avoid voicing my own feelings and opinions. In this sense the interviews were perhaps more 'directed' than many (the interviewee simply

'replying' to a range of questions) but this was a deliberate position from the start. It was not meant to imply that the responses were in any way less 'biased', since to do so would be to assume both an impossible 'invisibility' within the interview, and to ignore a wider series of relations between 'theory' and 'method'.

Rather, since I was interested in exactly those sorts of feelings that I myself often found both personally and politically 'difficult' (racism, for example) I felt it important to assume as 'passive' a role as possible to allow the space for such feelings to be articulated. At the same time, whilst it is recognized that any interview, however conducted, is a 'dialogue', there remain doubts over how successfully this relationship can ever be 'read for' in the final account. With this in mind, I have tended to keep my own questions out of the transcript material presented here, except where it is necessary to understand the topic in discussion (see section 3.5b).

It is recognized that such a position assumes its own set of 'hierarchical' power relations (Herod, 1993; Oakely, 1981) and these were not always easily negotiated. For example, where I rarely disagreed or challenged my respondent's opinions this often led to a situation where they were quite unsure of my own position, and plainly felt uncomfortable (though, curiously, this very silence may also have encouraged those emotional disclosures discussed above). Having assumed a position of 'silence', at the end many asked directly for my own thoughts on the discussion and the last session was often given over to a discussion of the sorts of interpretations around which I had been working. Such discussions clearly relate to the wider power relations involved in the act of interpretation, but they also impacted upon relations within the interview itself. Especially when couched in terms of 'what others had said', these discussions often seemed a blatant request for my opinion of what they in fact had said, and can also be understood as a means through which the individual respondent sought to 'test' the level of confidentiality they could expect in these meetings. I found these requests extremely difficult, not least because they tended to re-enforce my position as some kind of arbiter of the 'correct', or at least socially correct answer. In retrospect I am still uncertain how far, or indeed if, this position could have been avoided. But I recognize that my silence may have been a deliberate attempt to maintain my own quite powerful position (the all knowing 1/ eye), and especially in those interviews with the new cultural class respondents where these power relations often seemed to work in rather different directions (see above). Where the intimacy of the sessions tended to generate a less formal atmosphere this clashed with the formality of my own position and in this sense these 'difficulties' were perhaps inevitable.

own homes, though the exact context often changed. It was felt that meeting in their homes w ould help put the respondents at ease, as well as being more convenient for them. The environment in which the interviews took place was important because it allowed me to contextualize each individual's understandings (Morley, 1991). For example, objects close to hand, or their choice of furnishings, would often allow the respondent to illustrate a particular point, whilst offering clues to interpretation that might otherwise have gone unexplored (see Dorian, chapter 7.3). It was no coincidence, for example, that Alex chose to conduct our sessions in the office. Compared to the other respondents, Alex tended to assume the role of 'professional interviewee', and almost always illustrated his accounts with examples drawn from his working life. In this sense his professional identity was understood as central to his understandings of the contemporary re-organisations of presence and absence (see chapter 4.2), whilst his ability to separate the spaces of home and work are also critical to his attempts to assume a more controlled temporal environment (chapter 5.3).

But the exact context and time of interviews was flexible. Most were conducted in the evenings, with a week separating each meeting, to fit around a busy work schedule. But George and I occasionally met on a Saturday, and mostly before work at about eight o'clock in the morning. In fact, these meetings helped generate a more relaxed atmosphere, as my arrival became part of the family routine. George and I would sit and have coffee whilst his wife left for work, and the nanny took his daughter to play group. Only after they had all left would we start our meetings.

In contrast, not only would Pat often forget our arrangements, but the sessions usually took place in an altogether more frenetic atmosphere. More than once they were interrupted by the arrival of her grandchildren, whilst in the early meetings her husband tended to wander in and out of the room offering his own thoughts on the proceedings. This tended to make Pat lose her train of thought, and after a while I asked if w e could 'formalize' our arrangements. Her husband was then 'banished' from the room, appearing only to bring us cups of tea. In this more 'formal' atmosphere it then proved easier to start moving through the interview guides.

Finally, all the sessions were taped, using a small 'walkman' tape recorder, and the possibility of recording the interviews was discussed in the initial meetings. All the respondents were happy to let me record the sessions. Clearly this allowed me to concentrate more upon the flow of each meeting itself (and not to worry about whether I w ould remember the conversations themselves) but, though a full transcript was also essential to the final analyses it should by now be clear that I neither produced, nor have offered, a 'pure' transcript (3.5b).

3.5a The interpretation of material: data analysis and the power relations of