Rapport and data collection 81


The literature focusing on the impact that rapport has on data collection is

contradictory. As mentioned above, on the one hand it is argued that good rapport between interviewer and respondent can help reduce the subordinate status of the interviewee, and thus minimise interviewer related errors and biases. On the other hand, Lavin and Maynard (2001) stress that rapport makes an interview situation less standardised and thus increases the influence of the interviewer on the nature of the data.

In his classic study, Hyman (1954) argues that all interviewers have certain expectations and beliefs regarding their respondents, which may compromise the validity of the generated data. The author stresses that particularly in the context of less standard or unstandardised interviews, generated data are more likely to be biased when interviewers have strong beliefs and expectations. The more unstandardised the interview situation, the less control is exercised over the interviewee, so “that subsequent experiences, even if contradictory, will be

assimilated into the framework of the initial expectation” (Hyman, 1954, p. 88-9). At the same time, Hyman stresses that such expectations, even when intense in nature, will never bias the entire data collection as such expectations are usually limited to a few issues and never comprise all matters addressed in a study. “The bias would be maximal only for those interviewers whose expectations tend to be comprehensive in scope and rigid or persistent in the face of contradictory

appearance and remarks of the respondents” (Hyman, 1954, p. 92). In this context, Hyman (1954, p. 138) distinguishes between two interactive behaviours that can occur between interviewer and respondent. “Task involvement” describes an interaction that is limited to a question-answer conversation, whereas “social involvement” addresses interactions of respondents with the interviewer’s

82


personality. According to Hyman (1954), biases are more likely to occur in the latter form of involvement.

In this context, Rosenblum criticises the traditional model of scientific interviewing whereby “conversation, as opposed to simple exchange of questions and answers, may be taken as a measure of the operation of a sociable as opposed to a

professional stance” (Rosenblum, 1987, p. 390). Rosenblum calls for the rules in social science to be broadened and adapted to the conditions of the interview setting in which interviewer-respondent interactions take place. Thus, questions should be direct responses to answers given by the interviewee. This not only enables the researcher to better adjust to the unexpected, but also stimulates respondents to articulate their experiences, thoughts and knowledge, revealing the rules under which people structure and choose their behaviour.

In general, the investigator is actively involved in generating data as the interview has to be seen as an interplay between researcher and respondent. As Mills, Bonner and Francis (2006) stress, “the interview becomes the site for the construction of knowledge, and clearly the researcher and informant produce this knowledge together” (Mills et al., 2006, p. 9). Hence, the researcher does not merely observe the respondent; instead, researcher and respondent engage in a situation of mutually shaping each other in their perceptions and expressions (Turner, 1981). Responses by the interviewee are affected by direct but also indirect communication (Gergen & Back, 1966) such as body language or gestures. Whereas it might be possible to control direct communication in a way that minimises interviewer related biases, it appears less possible to completely control the indirect communication of an

interviewer. Briggs (1986) highlights the implicit positivist understanding on which the attempt to avoid any interactive factors between interviewer and respondent is based. As mentioned above, revealing the true order of things (cf. Brenner, 1981) by excluding such factors as age, gender or political views, which might influence an interviewer in the questions they raise or in their data analysis, implies that there is a universal reality waiting to be discovered by the researcher who is able to appropriately use the correct tools. It would mean that a single and universal truth about reality exists which can be analysed in isolation from the social context in which it was observed.

83


Goffman (1969) tells us that in social interactions, people react based on a complex system of experiences, knowledge and attitudes. An interview is a social interaction whereby answers given by the respondent demonstrate the various concepts that an individual has of their social and physical environment. Interviewees do not simply answer questions, but react to the interview situation which is internally structured by tensions, motives, goals and attitudes and externally influenced by social norms (Kahn & Channel, 1967). This makes the interviewer a participant, rather than allowing them to be an objective observer. Hence, neutrality based on a concept of objective observations made by an emotionally detached researcher has to be discarded. Gorden (1980) stresses that this questions the reliability of qualitative interviews because the precise meaning of any question raised during the course of an interview always depends on a person’s individual understanding of it, which itself is based on such unique characteristics as social background, education or lived experiences.

Perceiving an interview as social interaction shaped and structured in its course by social norms and expectations necessarily puts constraints upon both interviewer and, more importantly, the respondent. Consequently, the latter might be more unwilling to disclose certain information in a personal interview. This has to be categorised as a further interviewer related effect (Hyman, 1954). There are many studies, especially within the fields of medicine (Iverson, Brooks, Ashton & Lange, 2010) and sexuality (Castel-Branco, 2010; Langhaug, Sherr & Cowan, 2010), where this effect has been well documented. However, there have also been studies where no difference could be found in the results generated by self-completed questionnaires and face-to-face interviews (Hahn, Rao, Cella & Choi, 2008). It has also been demonstrated that in certain instances respondents actually preferred personal interviews to answering questionnaires (L. Eriksson et al., 2008).

Hence, it appears that the responsive behaviour of an interviewee and the nature of information that is revealed depend on much more than simply the physical

presence of an interviewer. As the examples above demonstrate, responses will depend on the research topic and the atmosphere during an interview, but also on the type of interview that is used.

84


In this context, Schütze’s (1983) analyses of the dynamics during an interview and their effect on an interviewee are of great importance. Although Schütze’s method of narrative interviewing is very specific with regards to the setting that has to be created during an interview, it is likely that his general argument is applicable to any kind of semi- or unstructured interview. Schütze (1983) describes three constraints that impact on a respondent during their narratives. First, Schütze argues, during their narratives interviewees will feel obliged to explain any themes completely and sufficiently to make the narrative intelligible to the interviewer (Gestaltungszwang). Second, in order to make their narratives comprehensible, respondents will give a condensed account of events, excluding any unrelated information (Kondensierungszwang). Third, and most importantly, the respondent’s narrative will be detailed, including additional and background information or related events that are essential in producing a narrative that is comprehensive and yet comprehensible (Detaillierungszwang). In other words, building rapport and enabling a respondent to engage in a conversation that is not restricted by an interviewer who is exercising control excessively will create a setting in which those three constraints will allow the generation of rich and valuable data. “You should take the least intrusive route to what you do need, leaving the choice of whatever and what to reveal to the interviewee after you have expressed an interest in the matter” (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 34).