CLASSICAL RECEPTIONS IN LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY
DRAMA AND POETRY IN ENGLISH
ESSAYS ON DOCUMENTING AND RESEARCHING
MODERN PRODUCTIONS OF GREEK DRAMA: THE SOURCES
ESSAY 6: INTERVIEWS AS A METHODOLOGY FOR PERFORMANCE RESEARCH :
(2 ) A C A D E M I C I N T E R V I E W S - A N I N V I T A T I O N F O R D I S C U S S I O N
Alison Burke & Paul Innes1 (2004, revised 2007)
( I) I N T R O D U C T I O N
One of the consequences of the growth of academic interest in Reception has
been an increased focus on the thoughts and opinions of theatre practitioners.
However, because of the ephemeral nature of theatre production and the general
sparseness of production documentation, traditional methodological approaches
do not generate the evidence needed for academic analysis. To fill this gap,
scholars can look to the accounts of practitioners' intentions in published
interviews. These interviews can take the form of either journalistic or academic
interviews. In a previous discussion [Burke 2003] it has been seen that
journalistic interviews are a useful but problematic source of data collection.
Journalistic interviews are useful because they provide access to a restricted
world, but problematic because they are circumscribed by a need for mutual
promotion that arises as a consequence of the symbiotic relationship in operation
between publications and productions, and interviewers and practitioners. As part
of the analysis of the importance of interviews, attention now turns to the
academic interview. Initially it may seem that the academic interview can avoid
the shortfalls of the journalistic interview. On the surface it could seem as though
the academic interview is the more thorough form of interview: freed from the
need to promote a publication or production, the academic interview could appear
to be a more scholarly, de-personalised and probing inquiry into a practitioner's
intentions/motivations. Whether the researcher in Classical performance uses
published interviews conducted by other academics or embarks on a field study
using the academic interview model, it is important to note that the academic
interview is similarly subject to a collection of limitations that need to be factored
into the analysis of interview data. In the main, this article explores the strengths
and weaknesses of using published academic interviews, but it is also hoped that
in studying the form of the academic interview this article will also be of value for
academics interested in conducting interviews for research purposes.
Positively, as a consequence of the knowledgeable position of the academic
interviewer and theatre interviewee, academic interviews provide an informed
discourse about a practitioner's involvement with a production. Indeed, the key
strength of academic interviews is that it they are conducted from a position of
specialised knowledge, which would be too in-depth for a journalistic interview,
which is aimed at a general media audience. Negatively, however, the academic
interview is subject to limitations that are both inherent in the methodological
process of interviewing and particular to the dynamic that exists between the
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
academic interviewer and the 'Elite' interviewee. In the course of this article, we
shall argue that for 'second-hand' data to be used correctly, it needs to be
analysed with reference to the respective intentions of the interviewer and
interviewee. Moreover, what will also be seen, is that although publication is by
means of a written text, interviews are not in fact written texts. Rather, the
published piece is an interpretation of a discussion, an interpretation that cannot
convey the dynamic of a conversation (including tone, register, accompanying
gesture and so forth). Many idiosyncratic factors impinge on the reliability of the
interview and these factors must be factored into the analysis of the data. These
limitations acknowledged, however, in this article we shall argue that interviews
can be a useful tool and productive source of enquiry. They cannot replace or
supersede other lines of enquiry, but, as part of an embracing methodology,
academic interviews are an essential part of production analysis.
The following discussion divides into four main sections (II-V). In Section II we
explore bibliographic issues in order to appreciate the evolution of the interview
form and the distinction between academic interviews, which are qualitative
research interviews, and other interview models, for example standardised
questionnaires. In Section III we focus on the participants. An understanding of
the roles and interaction of interviewer and interviewee demonstrates that the
status of 'Elite' is both advantageous and problematic. Following on from the
advantages/disadvantages of the 'Elite' model, Section IV looks at further
limitations generated by the interview process and establishes factors that need
to be taken in to account when using information taken from a published
interview. In Section V, examples of published academic interviews will be
analysed. For ease of comparison two interviews conducted by established
academics (Marianne McDonald and John Haffenden) with the poet/playwright
Tony Harrison are compared and contrasted with reference to interview context,
language and the aims of the interviewer and interviewee.
( II) R E L E V A N T L I T E R A T U R E
At the very least, a surface understanding of the dynamics of the interview as a
form of social interaction is needed so as to appreciate the form of the academic
interview. However, it can be laborious to achieve this understanding simply
because the bibliography on interviewing has traditionally gone hand-in-hand with
the subject discipline for which the interview is being conducted. Moreover,
although the thoughts and intentions of practitioners are an essential part of
performance research, we have been unable to locate any bibliographic literature
that specifically analyses the form and role of the interview in theatre research.
Consequently, in contrast with other disciplines, no methodological framework for
theatre interviewing has yet been forged by decades of debate and counter
debate. Without a working methodology for interviewing theatre practitioners, it
is necessary to look to the methodological debate in other disciplines to
understand the complexity of the interview process.
On the whole, however, the relevant literature tends to offer advice about the
methodology of interviewing as part of a justification for a particular research
interest, which often has a therapeutic element. Social science literature, for
example, does not really engage with issues entailed in using published
interviews conducted by other researchers. The researcher in theatre, however,
2
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
might be interested in the methodology of interviews that he/she conducts as
part of his/her research (which requires the interviewee to be alive, able and
amenable to being interviewed), as well as published interviews that have been
conducted by another researcher (usually an established academic). The
published interview can serve several functions. One would be that if the target
respondent has been interviewed before and is for some reason unable or
unwilling to be interviewed again, then previously published interviews can
provide evidence for his/her motivations/intentions and so on. Another would be
that if the interviewee is able/amenable to being interviewed, then the previously
published interview can serve as a source for the questions asked in the interview
schema, as well as providing another account with which the results of the new
interview can be compared and contrasted. But the lack of theoretical advice and
discussion from interviewing specialists about the use of the information gained
from a published interview presents a challenge to understanding the theoretical
complexities of using 'second-hand information'. A theoretical basis to the use of
information is, nonetheless, a vital element of data gathering, and so a
methodological framework needs to be extrapolated from the theoretical
approach to subject-specific pragmatics advocated by sociological literature.
This essay cannot do full justice to the decades of scholarship concerning the
interview debate that has raged in sociology, anthropology, psychoanalysis etc. It
would be patronising to such disciplines to suggest that the complex issues that
social scientists and social anthropologists have discussed throughout the
twentieth century can be faithfully and cogently communicated by non-specialists.
Indeed, according to Kvale [1996, p.9] until recently there has been a lack of
cross-fertilization between disciplines so that 'isolated researchers have invented
small qualitative wheels over and over again.' The diverse literature generated by
different disciplines has resulted in a seemingly never-ending flow of literature,
yet by virtue of being written in isolation it is tailored to the respective area of
enquiry. A theatre researcher is potentially lost in this maze of at once relevant
and irrelevant literature. However, the theatre researcher aiming at developing
an interview methodology derived from the theoretical premises and practical
experience of other disciplines is greatly helped by the publication of Nigel
Fielding's [2003] compendium in four volumes of salient articles. Fielding's
collection gathers together previously published seminal articles, which discuss
areas ranging from the historical contextualisation of interview scholarship;
identification of distinct interview types and concomitant methods; explanation of
the qualitative/quantitative dialectic; and interview ethics (interviewer behaviour,
transcription, confidentiality, and the impact of gender, status and sexuality on
the interview process). Also of central bibliographic importance is the collection of
specially commissioned essays by Jaber F. Gubrium and James A Holstein [2002],
which provides fresh discussions on the same areas as are covered by Fielding's
compendium. In addition to these collections, key specialist monographs alert the
researcher to the important issues current in the interview debate. A particularly
accessible monograph by Bill Gillham [2000] explores research interviewing in
straightforward language and provides clarity on the major issues of interviewing.
A philosophical exploration of qualitative research interviewing is offered by
Steiner Kvale [1996], who explores more complex issues of interviewing in the
light of post-modernist, hermeneutic and dialectical positions. Kvale also
discusses Hamlet's 'interview' with Polonius (Hamlet Act III Scene 2) and Plato's
Symposium to forge a link between interviews and the humanities. A detailed
3
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
understanding of the complexity of interview issues is available through specialist
monographs that examine a particular type of interview, for example Robert K.
Merton, Margorie Fiske and Patricia L. Kendall's [1990; (1956)] examination of
focused interview methods investigates issues of range, specificity and depth, and
Lewis Anthony Dexter [1970] relates those same issues to interviewing 'Elite'
respondents.
Interview scholarship has traditionally tended to focus and advise on the
respective role, status and interaction between the interviewer and interviewee,
and the composition of the interview schema, with particular reference to the
nature of the interview questions. Since the 1940s debate has on the whole
focused on the extent to which the interview is structured (that is composed of
generic questions that are asked of all respondents) or non-structured (that is
composed of open questions tailored to the individual respondent). An overview
of the evolution of scholarship examining issues of standardisation is compiled by
Beatty [2003, passim; (1996)] and the perceived strengths and criticisms of
standardised and non-standardised interviews are detailed by Pawson [2003,
p.154; (1996)]. Since the 1940s qualitative as opposed to quantitative interviews
have been generally considered to require a method that privileged the
interviewee and suppressed the role of the interviewer. Thus, for example,
Merton and Kendall [2003; (1946)] devised a methodology for their 'Focused
interview' that privileged non-direction. Whilst he acknowledges the prior analysis
of the interviewer and his/her role in the composition of the interview schema,
Merton nevertheless argues for non-direction in the questions asked in order to
maximise the importance of the interviewee's thoughts and judgements.
Similarly, Gordon's [2003; (1956)] methodology of the 'Depth' interview insists
on non-direction on the part of the interviewer. Essentially, these types of
interviews aim to reduce the influence and control the role of the interviewer;
indeed Dohrenwend and Richarson [2003 p.334; (1956)] for example consider
that the use of a pre-planned interview schema will inevitably lead to the
interviewer controlling the interview. In modern times, however, the role of the
interviewer is no longer seen as a role that can potentially be expunged; rather
the act of conversation is seen to involve both participants in the shaping of
interview data. With reference to quantitative research methods, this has led
Beatty to re-examine the structured/unstructured debate; and with reference to
qualitative research methods, modern scholars stress the relationship between
the research agenda for which the interview is being conducted and the role of
the interviewer. As will be discussed in more detail in Section III, with particular
regard to 'Elite' interviewing, the research aims of the interview will be
fundamental to the direction of the interview.
The bibliographic literature of other disciplines provides a crucial grounding in the
study of interview methods, which can then be transferred to the study of theatre
interviewing. It is essential to understand the dynamic of interviewing through an
appreciation of theoretical issues when one seeks to analyse a published interview
or plan a research study that will be based on interviews. The literature on
interviews, although often tailored for therapeutic case studies, does alert the
theatre researcher to issues of the control of meaning, circumscribing relevance
and determining range and specificity. The roles and agendas of interviewers and
interviewees constitute an essential part of understanding the factors that
impinge on the published academic interview.
4
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
( III) U N D E R S T A N D I N G T H E M E T H O D :
THE INTERVIEWER, INTERVIEWEE AND THE INTERVIEW SCHEMA
The Elite respondent
In an academic interview, the theatre practitioner is rightly
considered an 'Elite' respondent. Accordingly, the interview
schema and the behaviour of the interviewer will be tailored to
this 'Elite' status. An 'Elite' can be defined as a high-ranking
figure characterised by his/her position. Odendahl and Shaw, for
example, define 'Elites' in the following terms:
Elites generally have more knowledge, money, and status and assume a higher
position than others in the population. The privileges and responsibilities of elites
are often not tangible or transparent, making their world difficult to penetrate. 2
However, the juxtaposition of 'knowledge, money, and status' in this definition
could encourage a limited understanding of 'Elites' derived from a wealth and
power based superiority. The danger of characterising 'Elites' through 'hierarchical
superiority' led Dexter to define 'Elite' interviewing, not so much by the status of
the interviewee, but through the purpose of the interview. For Dexter an 'Elite'
interview is one in which the interviewer is looking for instruction, thus the
interview is framed with reference to the interviewee's knowledge which the
interviewer is trying to access. This relationship encouraged Dexter to posit a
three-point definition of 'Elite' interviewing. Firstly, he stresses that the
interviewee's definition of the situation is paramount. Secondly, it is the
interviewee's structuring of his/her account of the situation under investigation
that is paramount. And, thirdly, the interviewee rather than the interviewer
determines issues of relevance. Dexter's use of methodology to define the 'Elite
interview is slightly problematic. As he notes, in the second and third parts of the
definition, he incorporates, to a large extent, ideas from Merton's focused
interview. Freedom from a methodologically determined definition of 'Elite',
however, is suggested by Odendahl and Shaw [2002], who argue:
The designation of who or what is elite varies according to the
area of inquiry, and part of the investigative process is
determining the scope of the enquiry. … Those studying elites
have developed many different typologies.3
With respect to academic interviews with theatre practitioners, 'Elite' is feasibly
defined through knowledge. Method aside, Dexter, is right to establish that
communication of knowledge is the key point to characterising the 'Elite'
interview. What really defines an 'Elite' interviewee is the information that the
respondent can provide. An 'Elite' respondent can communicate information that
is not available from any other source, from the vantage of his/her personal
involvement in the source material. According to this definition, theatre
practitioners are certainly 'Elite' respondents, since their experience alone can
provide 'authoritative', and hitherto not communicated, information about his/her
role in the subject under study or 'inside' understanding of events.
Preparation and the 'Elite' interview
5
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
The position of knowledge that the 'Elite' interviewee occupies necessitates a
particular interview methodology: the bedrock of 'Elite' interviewing is intense
prior research and freedom in the interview schema (to whatever degree), which
is composed in appropriate terminology.
An interview with an 'Elite' respondent clearly requires advance research into
his/her career. Even so, the prominent writing about 'Elite' interviewing stills sees
a need to stress that advance research is a key factor. Zuckerman, for example,
as preparation for her interviews with laureate scientists, writes:
Intensive preparation facilitated the process of interviewing in
two principal ways. First, it gave evidence of the seriousness of
the interviewer and helped to legitimize expenditure of time on
the interview. This was an adaptive function designed to provide
a firm basis for the temporary laureate-interviewer
relation….Second, questions based on materials gathered in
preparation often called forth responses that would otherwise not
have been elicited particularly if an entirely standardized
interview guide had been employed.4
In published academic interviews the level of research undertaken in advance is
significant, usually in terms of the life history of the interviewee and critical
interpretations of their creative ventures. Although in some respects obvious
(courtesy and sensible preparation), this advance research does have an
interrogative function: simply, the responses of the interviewee can be debated
during the interviews if the interviewer is fully versed in the issues [Dexter: 1970,
p.14]. One of the major strengths of the published academic interview is the
academic's level of knowledge. The specialist academic is uniquely qualified to
undertake an interrogative role, and to the 'second-hand' researcher, who may
not have the years of academic experience, the established academic's knowledge
(exhibited through questions and discussion) can open new lines of enquiry or
reach a deeper level of analysis. The reliance of prior critical evaluation, however,
should also sound a warning bell for the position of interview: the interview is at
the end of a long road of enquiry and, however 'authoritative' the transcript
appears to be, its very existence is dependent on the prior research. The
interview is rightly placed in a wider methodology of traditional lines of academic
enquiry and performance analysis. The key point to remember is that the
interview does not override issues raised by alternative sources, but provides
another perspective.
Range and specificity of the 'Elite' interview schema
The use of prior research to determine the range of the discussion also raises the
issue of the range and specificity of the interview schema. 'Elite' interviewing
replicates the same debate as in other interviewing literature, that is, to what
extent does the interviewer control the range of schema through determining the
areas to be discussed, or allow the interviewee to direct the range of the
interview. In effect, this is the key issue. Major elements of this debate are issues
of whether the interview schema should be composed of structured (variously
called standardised/generic/direct) questions or unstructured (not
standardised/specific/non-direct/open ended) questions. Dexter, for example,
whilst noting the possible constraints of research aims, strongly argues in favour
of an unstructured schema that uses entirely unstructured questions. Dexter's
6
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
preference is derived from his concern with limiting the role of the interviewer
and privileging the interviewee. In the sparse scholarship on 'Elite' interviewing,
since Dexter there has been a general move towards a semi-structured schema,
which uses a variety of structured and unstructured questions. This change
possibly arises as a consequence of the changing perceptions of the role of the
interviewer and the various disciplines that now use interview research. 5 The fact
that interviewers always participate in the construction of meaning, regardless of
any attempts to limit their role (for example, by standardised questionnaires),
has created an environment wherein the interviewer has an acknowledged role
that can be factored into interview analysis. Kvale, for example, whilst still
advocating an interviewee-centred approach, accepts that the direction of the
interview ought to respond to the aims of the research project for which the
interview is being conducted. Kvale advises those about to undertake research
based on interviews in the following way:
Think about how the interviews are to be analyzed before they
are conducted. The method of analysis decided on – or at least
considered - will then direct the preparation of the interview
guide, the interview process, and the transcription of the
interviews. Every stage in an interview project involves decisions
that offer both possibilities and constraints in later stages of the
project.6
Furthermore, Odendahl and Shaw [2003, p.310], and Ostrander [2003, p.399;
(1993)] both note that the area under investigation circumscribes their respective
interviews with 'Elites'. What this means is that the interview schema corresponds
to previously determined research aims: although the answers to specific
questions might not be known or expected, the general areas of enquiry can be
quite specific and can be pre-planned. In this way, research interviewers aim at
'covering their bases': specific questions allow for the areas of research interest
to be addressed, whilst the less tightly structured elements allow 'free reign' to
the interviewee to explore the areas that are of his/her concern. In this way the
formal aspect of interview question and answer is maintained, but similarly so is
the conversational transaction between participants; the research agenda is met
and potential new unanticipated lines of enquiry are opened up.
The range of the interview schema (derived from the interviewer's research aims)
in effect determines the scope of the interview and influences the range and
specificity of responses that an interviewee will give. But the causal relationship
between research aims, schema and responses can be problematic if the
interview is to be used by a researcher who possesses different research aims
from the original research agenda that underpinned the schema. By virtue of
publication the academic interview establishes itself as a usable source to the
readership of the publication in which it appears; even so, using an academic
interview can be problematic. For example, if an interviewer was not interested in
the political interpretation of a practitioner and did not allow for the political
dimension to be raised through the schema, then the lack of discussion could
suggest that the political dimension was not a prime-motivating factor for the
practitioner being interviewed, which might not necessarily be the case. Thus, the
schema can close out potential meanings and interpretation. This is not a fault of
the interviewer, who has rightly tailored the interview to the purpose of his/her
research interest, but it does mean that the information is filtered through a third
7
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
person's research priorities. When using information gained from an interview
conducted by a third party, however prestigious that third party may be,
questions about the way that the information has been generated need to be
asked. Thus, the research context and focus of the interview need to be factored
into the analysis of any information extrapolated from the interview context.
The 'Elite' status of the interviewer and interviewee is also marked in the
phraseology of the interview questions. Echoing the wider
structured/unstructured debate in sociology literature, as part of the methodology
for interviewing 'Elites', Dexter [1970] and Zuckerman [2003; (1972)] both
advocate using unstructured questions.7 The way that these questions are
phrased, however, marks an important difference between the standard
qualitative research interview and an 'Elite' interview. On the whole, the advice to
a research interviewer is to use language easily understood and divested of
academic terminology.8 In an academic interview, however, the terminology of
the interview will correspond to the 'Elite' status of the participants. In published
academic interviews both the interviewer and the interviewee are designated as
'Elite' by virtue of their knowledge, and their qualification to take part in the
interview is constantly reaffirmed through their informed discourse, which is
further stressed by their lexical choices. Moreover, the act of publication
'legitimises' their role as informed interlocutors; thus, it is in the interests of both
participants to reaffirm their unique qualification through thought and language.
The shared frame of reference between the established academic and theatre
practitioner allows the interview to be conducted with due reference to specialist
theatrical terminology, which in turn maximises the specificity of the interview.
But there is always a danger that a closed hermeneutic world is created that
excludes those who are not privy to the implied meanings in a coded language.
The need to display intellectual credentials, most importantly by the interviewer,
can lead a competitive use of language that evidences a struggle to 'control' the
interview. Consequently, using data from a published academic interview could
require a hermeneutic analysis to appreciate the motivation behind the text.
( IV) F U R T H E R L I M I T A T I O N S O F T H E I N T E R V I E W P R O C E S S
The information generated by published academic interviews is subject to a wide
variety of further limitations that need to be understood and taken into account
by the reader. A need for mutual promotion encroaches on the reliability of
information generated by journalistic interviews. But the academic interview,
whilst seeming more authoritative because of issues of range, language,
presentation of the interviewer/interviewee, is still potentially limited: issues of
transcription, interview context and idiosyncratic factors all impinge on the
interview.
Transcription
The give and take of a published academic interview might create the illusion that
the transcript is a written account of a conversation; therefore, by reading the
published transcript the reader is allowed to eavesdrop on the interview.
However, the published written text is an imperfect version/interpretation of the
actual interview. What appears on the published page is not a verbatim account
of what took place in actuality. The published academic interview undergoes an
8
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
editorial process that allows the interview to become a read text. In conversation,
interviewees will hesitate, repeat themselves, not finish sentences, and so forth.
The published interview, however, revises the verbatim transcript so that the text
appears as a continuous text. Kvale, for example, appreciates the complexities of
moving from tape to page:
Transcripts are not copies or representations of some original
reality, they are interpretative constructions that are useful tools
for given purposes. Transcripts are decontextualised
conversations, they are abstractions … The interview is an
evolving conversation between two people. The transcriptions are
frozen in time and abstracted from their base in a social
interaction. The lived face-to-face conversation becomes fixated
into transcripts. A transcript is a transgression, a transformation
of one narrative mode – oral discourse – into another narrative
mode – written discourse. To transscribe means to transform, to
change from one form to another.9
One of the serious drawbacks of using published interviews is that a reader is
unable to enter the 'spirit' of the interview and the interview context. There may
be hesitations, repetitions, digressions, translator error and so on in the
transcription of words. Due attention to the impact of punctuation on meaning
might also be problematic. Hence the reader is not necessarily able to capture the
context into which the words are delivered (physical and linguistic), nor the
emotion with which a word or sentence is invested. 10 The problem is not resolved
by having the interviewer subsequently act in the role of third party narrator,
describing the interviewee (as can happen in transcriptions of psychiatry
interviews for example) because the evaluation of the interviewee's behaviour,
tone, intentions etc. is always subjective to the interviewer. The logic of this
would require the interviewer to document his/her own physical and verbal
behaviour as part of the interactive creation of meaning. Moreover, the
interviewer may not be in possession of all relevant factors embedded in an
interviewee's behaviour. Thus, the transcript is akin to a script without stage
directions, design, direction and actor's interpretation, requiring the reader to be
aware that he/she has not heard the nuances that determine or shape meaning.
Caution needs to be exercised when utilising information gained from published
interviews.
Interview context
The temporal relationship between the published transcript, the interview, and
the areas discussed in the interview is also a potentially limiting factor. If a
published interview does not indicate the date on which it was conducted, it is
difficult to know what time gap exists between the areas under investigation and
the source material. Time is also important because of the transitory and
ephemeral nature of theatrical event. If the interview is conducted some time
after the interviewee's involvement with the creative project, this time gap can
impinge on the reliability of the information in several ways. Initially memory
might be compromised: a practitioner might simply have forgotten his/her
experiences, motivation, intentions and so on. Detail of events in sequence might
have become hazy and subsequent events might create a romantic or distorted
filter through which the past is remembered. Furthermore, continuing theatrical
9
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
experience can also encourage a standardising (or theorising) of motivation; thus,
the past can be interpreted through the interviewee's present motivations.
Accordingly, in their study of truth and interviews, Dean and Whyte argue:
The difficulties in interpreting informants' reports of subjective
data are seriously increased when the informant is reporting not
his present feelings or attitudes but those he recollects from the
past. This is because of the widespread tendency we all have to
modify a recollection of past feelings in a selective way that fits
them more comfortably into our current point of view. 11
The limitations imposed by time on memory, should not, however, be allowed
entirely to dismiss interviews that are conducted at a distance from the event.
The limitations imposed by time can be factored into analysis and the potential
weaknesses noted and accommodated. Moreover, depending on the research aim
of the interviewer (or the researcher reading the published transcript), the way
that a practitioner remembers a past theatrical event and interprets it can be
instructive. The selection of the memory process could also be used as evidence
for what the practitioner held to be important, and, as has been seen, what is
important to the interviewee is a key factor in qualitative research. Furthermore,
the influence of the past on the present can help the reader appreciate the
importance of the past event in the way that it shapes and influences future
creative projects. The influence of the present on the memory of the past is also
instructive, as it allows the interviewer/reader to understand the evolution of the
stance (or emerging style) of a practitioner; seeing the creative event in the light
of a wider creative process. Again, as with the direction of the interview schema,
the key point is research aim: a diachronic study will look for relationships and
interconnections, whereas a synchronic analysis will need to appreciate the
potential limitations imposed by time, whilst not allowing time to overshadow the
value of the interview data.
Idiosyncratic limitations
In addition to issues of transcription and context, there is a host of idiosyncratic
reasons, which might not be immediately obvious to the reader, why the
information gained from an interview can be questioned. The mood of the
interviewee, his/her response to the interview process, the interaction between
interviewer/interviewee, the experiences of the day, can all lead to presentation
of events that are only temporally true, but are not factored into the interview
process and cannot be accounted for in the subsequently published transcript.
Although it may be countered that personal idiosyncratic factors are not as much
of an issue in 'Elite' interviews, circumscribed as they are by inquiry into a specific
creative venture, factors related to the creative product might still be important.
For example, the relationship between the practitioner/interviewee and the
performance/production can fundamentally impinge on the nature of the
interview data. Hypothetically, if an actor is the interviewee and has had a
negative (or positive) experience of working with a particular
director/designer/choreographer/fellow cast member[s], then that experience can
shape his/her responses. Those experiences are subjectively true (therefore
providing a perspective on the production), but are not necessarily abidingly true
of the experience of others. The theatre grapevine echoes with stories of
infamous fallings out (or conversely especially productive relationships), and
10
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
these emotions can further determine the perspective through which the data is
filtered.
There are two potential responses to these limitations: wider research and an
understanding of the value/limitation of subjectivity. With respect to wider
research, information gleaned from a published transcript needs to be set in
context by being assessed in the light of another published accounts, for
example, journalistic interviews, theatre programmes, specialist monographs and
so on. The key point is that the academic interview is only one mode of inquiry,
which is no more authoritative than other modes. Simply, the comparison of
different sources, rather than the privileging of seemingly 'straight from the
horse's mouth' data, is necessary for a balanced account; a richer understanding
will be achieved by appreciating points of similitude or difference. Setting the
interview data in a wider research context, however, should not be taken to mean
that the perspective of the interview is only validated when equally corroborative
subjective data is forthcoming from another source. According to Kvale,
'intersubjective reliability' could lead to:
tyranny by the lowest possible denominator: that an
interpretation is only reliable when it can be followed by
everyone, a criterion that could lead to trivialization of the
interpretations. This may again involve a consensualist
conception of truth: that an observation or an interpretation is
only considered valid if it can be repeated by everyone,
irrespective of the quality of the observation and the
argumentation.12
The focus on the interview as a shared construction of meaning in which each
participant brings to the interview ideas shaped by their
experiences/agendas/intentions is now part of the bedrock of qualitative
interviewing which uses an interactionalist method. With respect to the role of the
interviewee, this focus on the role of the individual foregrounds the individual's
lived experience as central to appreciating the data that qualitative research
interviews generate [Kvale, 1996, passim]. The appreciation and application of
this premise to theatre research enables the very subjectivity of interviewee's
responses and interpretation to become as instructive as a less subjective
account. Thus, using the example of a disgruntled actor, the question becomes
why does he/she possess such feelings, and what can those feelings tell the
researcher about the theatrical event which may not have been evident from
witnessed-based performance analysis.
Even so, the comparison between McDonald's interview and that by Haffenden
does point towards a literary theoretical implication: that such interview material
does have its uses for the performance researcher, but in ways that are
circumscribed by the form that is being used. Even as the elite interviewer is
trying to elicit important information, his or her own context necessarily impinges
on the interview situation. As a form of recorded literary discussion, such an
interview needs to be carefully unpacked.
(V) A C A D E M I C I N T E R V I E W S I N P R A C T I C E
11
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
Clearly, the use of academic interviews by the researcher has both benefits and
limitations. How the researcher makes practical use of them depends on the
research project at hand, but some useful general points can be made. Four areas
of enquiry are open to the reader of academic interviews: the context of the
interview; the language it uses; the research agenda of the interviewer; and the
interaction between the interview schema and the conversation that takes place.
In addition to the contextual implications noted previously, the researcher who is
using the interview as a primary source needs to work out how the interview
being read relates to his or her own research agenda. The language used during
the conversation will provide clues to the schema and the interviewer's own
agenda, particularly when the respondent begins to go beyond the interviewer's
questions.
Theory and Pragmatics
These general points form the immediate context for our own analysis of the two
academic interviews we have chosen. Within this context, we move between two
categories, each of which has further implications. On a theoretical level, there is
the major issue of authority over meaning, and this in itself breaks down into
three parts:
1. the authority of the interviewee
2. that of the interviewer
3. and the relationship between both.
The ways in which authority is interleaved through the interview process is of
great importance, because it impinges so much on the crucial terrain over which
meanings play out. Our second level is that of the pragmatic purpose of the
interview, the purpose it serves.
The two levels we have identified exist in other forms of interviews. Some
analysis of journalistic interviews has already been undertaken in Burke [2003]:
The aims of this paper are: to set journalistic interviews within a
wider methodology; to consider the value of interview evidence
and to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the interview
process through analysis of the relationship of intent (mutual
promotion) that characterises the interviewer/ interviewee
relationship.
The focus here upon the interview relationship in a journalistic context will be of
value for our second set of issues, associated with the pragmatic purposes of the
interview. Moreover, the assumptions that underpin this kind of work also have
ramifications for the first, or theoretical, level of enquiry:
The value of journalistic interviews is that they can provide a
medium by which practitioners can explain their intentions in the
performance. The unique feature of interviews (academic and
journalistic) is that they provide the opportunity for theatre
practitioners to elucidate the creative process. 13
The linking of the two kinds of interviews via the realm of the production of
meaning lays bare a fundamental theoretical problem: should an interview with a
cultural practitioner be considered a full statement of meaning? Perhaps the
12
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
viewpoint even of a writer is inevitably always partial, especially in relation to a
dynamic art such as live theatre, in which meanings generated within the same
audience can vary so widely. An extreme position could be that the practitioners'
views are irrelevant, since there is no guarantee that their intentions are fulfilled
in practice. Additionally, these issues are further undercut by the status of the
interview itself as a form of publication, which leads back again to pragmatics:
Journalistic interviews, however, are not a neutral method of data
collection, as the media interview process is circumscribed by a
relationship of intent: a symbiotic relationship exists between the
media and the theatre that is predicated on the basis of mutual
promotion.14
The production of publicity material lies at the heart of the whole process and
leads to a startling clarity of function as well as a clear stratification of roles:
The promotion of the production is achieved through the
promotion of the practitioner; because the act of being
interviewed assumes superior knowledge on behalf of the
practitioner, the respondent is defined as 'Elite' and is, therefore,
invested with authority.15
However, a distinction between journalism and academia arises here, because the
academic interview operates according to a different set of priorities. The
academic is also perceived to be of an 'Elite', with an insider's access to the
privileged realms in which meanings are produced and articulated. It would
therefore seem to be appropriate to note at this stage that academic interviews
need to be analysed very carefully because of the range of interests they serve.
Haffenden's Interview
Interestingly, the title of the first of our two chosen examples is Interview With
Tony Harrison by John Haffenden [1991], which was published in an academic
monograph of collected articles about the poet Tony Harrison. It is not an
interview of Tony Harrison by John Haffenden. The connective implies a more
equal playing field between two protagonists and indeed the very beginning of the
published text reinforces the academic's 'Elite' status in the sense we have
outlined:
JH. You are on record as having said elsewhere that 'every poem
is a momentary defeat of pessimism', which suggests that you
share Robert Frost's sense of a poem being 'a momentary stay
against confusion', except for the fact that 'pessimism' is the
operative word for you.16
The language here may of course have been edited for publication, but it hardly
reads like a semi-conversational interview situation. This is appropriate for
inclusion in a collection of scholarly articles, particularly given the intertextual
reference to Harrison's paraphrasing of Frost. Rhetorically, as the very beginning
of the published interview, the paragraph serves the purpose of laying bare not
only the parameters of the interview, but also the level of knowledge that has
been attained by the academic interviewer. Its purpose is as much to
demonstrate the interviewer's own 'Elite' status as it is to elicit a response.
13
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
Slightly later in the interview, the academic demonstrates more knowledge: 'You
also take on a Marvellian air of lyric grace' [1991, p.228]. Statements such as
these reinforce the status of the interviewer in a way that marks out a difference
between academic and journalistic interviews. The published product has a very
clear sense of relation to the level of pragmatics with which we are concerned.
This could be interpreted as a positive element; more negatively, however, is its
relationship to the theoretical level of enquiry. There are two reasons why it
should be so. The first is the elision of historical difference: Harrison is
complimented as being Marvellian, as though two radically different poets
separated by 350 years can simply be compared in this way. The implicit
underlying assumption is one of unbroken continuity, a Great Tradition, a
common enough position and one that does not necessarily detract from the
interview in its published form. The second, however, is more fundamental to the
very nature of the academic interview, and follows on logically from the issue of
relative 'Elite' status. The problem here is one of elitism: such language and such
a display of knowledge can in fact close off interpretation from a wider audience.
Even other academics will not necessarily have enough elite knowledge to be able
to follow what is going on here. The closed circle that is created points to ways in
which different kinds of academic interview may be posited on different
conceptions of what academics do and how accessible their work should be. In
other words the academic interview could tend towards being the opposite of the
journalistic one in the crucial level of theoretical enquiry. A closed hermeneutic
circle is being constructed, one that is accessible only to those who have enough
specialised knowledge to be able to decode the meanings that are being brought
into play.
There is therefore a potential contradiction between the two levels of who defines
the meaning and the purpose of the interview. Perhaps it should be viewed as a
productive tension. After all, this is an interview intended for publication in an
academic collection. As it progresses, interestingly, a less elevated tone begins to
develop as Harrison starts to relate his poetry to his working-class background
[1991, p.234]. It becomes apparent in spite of the question of elitism in the
context of the interview that political relevance is crucial for this poet, and the
interview moves away from the kind of agenda set up by the interviewer.
Haffenden in fact misquotes a line, and Harrison picks up on this to make an
important point about the personal consequences of the relationship between
education and politics:
I don't feel happy in the world of 'literature', and nor do I feel
happy – with my education and my identity as a poet – in my old
working-class background: I'm in a way alienated from both, and
I have to do justice to that alienation in the poem.17
The poet's awareness of what is individually important to him leads on to an
engagement with gender, especially in the Oresteia:
TH. Yes, whereas you feel the Indian culture outside contains the
image of the destroying female as well as the productive female.
It's also something that I tried to bring back into the Oresteia –
the idea that the creator and the destroyer are the same person,
which is a more ancient idea than the godhead as patriarchal […]
One of the points of producing the Oresteia is to clarify the fact
14
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
that in the end it's a male statement: it's written by men and for
men.18
During the course of the interview, it becomes clear that Harrison sees his poetry
as a personal method of engaging with political issues. The different interests of
the two protagonists create a tension that produces multiple meanings, some of
which may not have been intended by either. The ways in which they play off
against each other makes this particular interview an interesting one to study. It
raises fundamental issues concerning the status of the academic interview itself.
What it is for, what purpose it serves: these are, in the end, not entirely clear. To
return to the title of the published piece: no purpose is stated. It is simply an
interview with Tony Harrison by the academic John Haffenden, as though that in
itself gives it sufficient rationale. The implication is that this rationale is sufficient
as the interview stands, and that it does have enough value to be included in a
collection of essays. More work needs to be done on the underlying issue of what
kinds of interviews (by and with whom) are included in 'academic' volumes. Two
possibilities might emerge: that the interviews are considered a form of primary
source; and that they add celebrity status to the academic voice because of the
'star' quality and influence of the practitioners.
McDonald's Interview
Our second interview, again with Tony Harrison, comes in the form of a chapter in
Marianne McDonald's book Ancient Sun, Modern Light: Greek Drama on the
Modern Stage [1992]. The relationship between theory and practice in McDonald's
aims and methods is set out in a Prologue in which she discusses her primary aim
of investigating what it is that makes Greek tragedy exciting in the modern world
and her belief in the importance of the role of creative writers and directors in
reinterpreting the plays for modern audiences. The context is different from the
Haffenden interview in that the whole book is written by one person, rather than
being a collection of works by various authors. Although the interview (Chapter
VIII) is simply entitled Tony Harrison's Interview, it nevertheless carries a certain
sense of place as it fits into the overall project of the book, which draws heavily
on interviews and talks by practitioners. The context provides the reason for the
interview's inclusion, which helps to keep the interview focused, in this case on
Harrison's re-interpretations of Greek drama for modern performance.
Additionally, the title implicitly gives ownership of the interview to Harrison. This
text takes a different direction from Haffenden's, since the underlying strategy is
not so much one in which the academic 'Elite' credentials need to be established.
Even the style adopted as the piece opens is radically different from Haffenden's:
the first paragraph sets the scene, and the next few sentences are represented as
conversational short sentences [1992, p.127].
This massive difference in style should not be taken as somehow less rigorous
than Haffenden's interview. The relative informality has its own rhetorical
purpose, and in its own way this one is at least as well constructed as the other.
The sense of purpose supplied by the context helps to keep the piece moving, as
it is obvious that the interviewer is seeking elucidation of performance issues.
McDonald seems open to popular culture inferences; a reader of Harrison's
comments quoted earlier might expect this to chime effectively with the poet's
own political interests:
15
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
MCDONALD: […] That combination of mind and body relates to
Plato's image in the Phaidros, namely, a chariot where the
rational element drives and the irrational horses pull the chariot
forward. Ancient Greek philosophy saw no isolation here. And
many Greek festivals had this model: sports were included
besides dramatic performances.
HARRISON: Well, also what inspires me about a place like Delphi,
and many places in Greece, is that you get a sense of a festival
where the person who would now be the football supporter and
the person who would now be the concertgoer is the same
person.
MCDONALD: Absolutely! You have large crowds, but there wasn't
the same sociological division between the people.
HARRISON: And it's a destructive division.19
Given the flow of the conversation at this point, the reference to Plato seems
illustrative of the point rather than potentially exclusionary and Harrison picks up
on it in order to make a comparison between ancient Greece and the modern
theatre that he feels is important. The style helps to keep things moving, with its
informality as well as the use of connectives giving it a sense of spontaneity. The
placing of these connectives at the beginning of each person's speeches makes
the points flow smoothly from one to the other.
The conversation continues to touch upon the complex interplay of ancient and
modern, leading into Harrison's interest in high art versus popular culture:
HARRISON: […] Now, it seems to me, that by making culture a
matter of refinement it stops doing the job of culture, which is
allow us to unite, even for the brief duration of a play, or a novel,
or a poem, those elements of ourselves that we are always
encouraged to separate by religion, or refined culture, or by
social convention.20
The interplay of the two protagonists' interests produces insights into Harrison's
critical position, permitting the interview situation to elicit information that might
not otherwise come out of secondary analysis. At the very least, the information
gained from the interview helps to gloss the position Harrison takes on modern
re-interpretations of classical works. The pragmatic needs of the interview do not
in this instance conflict with theoretical enquiry, but enhance it:
MCDONALD: It's a beautiful postmodernist gesture to revive a
culture that no one knows existed, in a sort of substratum of
language that we also don't know, but which you have revived.
You've signified the trace.
HARRISON: Yes, right. And my interest as a poet is to use the
most 'refined' forms and fill them with a language that has not
normally been granted permission to inhabit those forms. 21
Harrison is able to pick up on the highly theorised language used by the
interviewer to build upon the point he wants to make. So much so, in fact, that
he feels able to make contentious statements in very straightforward demotic
16
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
language: 'Well, Aristotle was wrong from the beginning. I think he's up the pole'
[1992, p.138]. Such use of language contrasts with his responses in the
Haffenden interview, pointing to something of a paradox: although the McDonald
interview is less formal, it is far more revealing. The techniques used are more
effective in gaining a response. However, both McDonald and Haffenden display
their 'Elite' status in a manner that could be detrimental to the overall effect of
their relative interviews. McDonald does make comparisons that are very similar
to those in the Haffenden piece:
But of course philosophy has gone between these poles for
almost all time. There's Kant and then again there's Heidegger,
showing the age-old conflict between the eternal and the
ephemeral, the unchanging and the changing.22
Such a comment could seem exclusionist, but here the interviewer glosses it by
means of a generalising statement and makes it relevant to the flow of the
interview.
CONCLUSIONS
Published academic interviews are an important source for understanding the
intentions of theatre practitioners. Academics are able to interview high profile
practitioners, whereas student researchers might not. Moreover, a specialist
academic's level of knowledge ensures that pre-planned interview questions and
un-planned conversation between the participants is detailed and informed. This
level of knowledge can allow for more probing and detailed questions and
immediate response to hitherto unexplored areas. The specialist academic is also
familiar with the appropriate terminology, and so should be able to ensure depth
and specificity in the interview process. As a consequence of these factors, the
academic interview is a vital part of performance research.
What this discussion has shown, however, is that the academic interview is also
subject to a wide variety of limitations. These need to be factored into the
analysis of information gained from the published interview. Chief amongst them
is the agenda of the interviewer. Modern interview scholarship stresses the role of
the interviewer's research agenda in shaping the range and content of the
interview. Published interviews generate their information in response to predetermined research aims, and these aims may not necessarily correspond to the
research aims of the reader of the published interview. Thus the published
interview can potentially close down as well as expand possible meanings.
Furthermore, the very strength of the academic interviewer's knowledge and
ability to communicate can be a potential weakness, if the interview loses its
interrogative function and becomes a display of knowledge.
The subjectivity entailed in planning an interview schema is also matched by the
subjectivity of the respondent. In addition to subjectivity derived from
perspective and experience, other factors such as context (temporal) and issues
of transcription can impinge on the reliability of the interview. What has been
seen is that, depending on the research aim of the reader/interviewer,
subjectivity need not be considered limiting, as the very act of interviewing
acknowledges the importance of perspective. Yet, as part of a methodology for
performance research, it is necessary to place the interview in relation to other
sources of information. The interview cannot be seen as a definitive statement
17
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
that encapsulates the truth of a performance; rather it is one more perspective in
the building picture of a production. It may be tempting to see the interview as
providing unassailable insight into the often inaccessible 'behind the scenes' world
of theatre, but, in effect, the interview needs to be assessed both in the light its
own structure, language and provenance and in the light of other forms of
documentation and analysis.
Bibliography
P. Beatty, Understanding the Standardized/Non-Standardized Interviewing
Controversy', Journal of Official Statistics, 11/2 1995, pp. 147-60, republished
in N. Fielding (ed.) Interviewing I, (London: SAGE Publications, 2003).
E. S. Bogardus ' Methods of Interviewing', Journal of Applied Sociology, 9 (1924)
456-57, republished in N. Fielding (ed.) Interviewing I, (London: SAGE
Publications, 2003).
A. Burke 'Interviews in classical performance research: (1) journalistic
interviews', The Reception of the Texts and Images of Ancient Greece in Late
Twentieth-Century Drama and Poetry in English, (Milton Keynes: The Open
University, 2003) and at
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays/essays/essaypage.htm
N. K. Denzin 'The Cinematic Society and the Reflexive Interview', in J. F. Gubrium
and J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of interview research: Context & method,
(London: Sage Publications, 2002).
L.A. Dexter Elite and specialized interviewing, (Evanston: Northwestern University
Press, 1970).
B. S. Dohrenwend & S. A. Richarson 'Analysis of the Interviewer's Behavior',
Human Organization 15 no.2 (1956) 29-32, republished in N. Fielding (ed.)
Interviewing III, (London: SAGE Publications, 2003).
N. Fielding Interviewing, I-IV, (London: SAGE Publications, 2003).
B. Gillham The Research Interview, (London and New York: Continuum, 2000).
R. L. Gordon 'Dimensions of the Depth Interview', American Journal of Sociology,
62 (1956) 158-64, republished in N. Fielding (ed.) Interviewing I (London:
SAGE Publications, 2003).
J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of interview research: Context &
method, (London: Sage Publications, 2002).
J. Haffenden 'Interview With Tony Harrison', in N. Astley, (ed.) Tony Harrison
(Newcastle upon Tyne: Bloodaxe, 1991).
S. Kvale Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing,
(London: Sage Publications, Inc., 1996).
P.F. Lazarsfeld 'The Controversy Over Detailed Interviews: An Offer for
Negotiation', Public Opinion Quarterly, 8 (1944) 38-60, republished in N.
Fielding (ed.) Interviewing I, (London: SAGE Publications, 2003).
18
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
M. McDonald Ancient sun, modern light: Greek drama on the modern stage, (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
R. K. Merton, M. Fiske, P. L. Kendall The focused interview: a manual of problems
and procedures, (New York: Free Press; London; Collier Macmillan, 1956;
second edition 1990).
R. K. Merton and P. L. Kendall 'The Focused Interview', American Journal of
Sociology, 51 (1946) 541-57, republished in N. Fielding (ed.) Interviewing I,
(London: SAGE Publications, 2003).
T. Odendahl and A. Shaw 'Interviewing Elites', in J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein
(eds.) Handbook of interview research: Context & method, (London: Sage
Publications, 2002).
S. A. Ostrander ' “Surely You're Not in This Just to be Helpful”: Access, Rapport,
and Interviews in Three Studies of Elites', Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 22 (1993) 7-27, republished in N. Fielding (ed.) Interviewing
III, (London: SAGE Publications, 2003).
R. Pawson, 'Theorizing the Interview', British Journal of Sociology, 47/2 (1996)
297-314 republished in N. Fielding (ed.) Interviewing I, (London: SAGE
Publications, 2003).
Blake D. Poland 'Transcription Quality', in J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein (eds.)
Handbook of interview research: Context & method, (London: Sage
Publications:, 2002).
C. A. B. Warren 'Qualitative Interviewing' in J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein
(eds.) Handbook of interview research: Context & method, (London: Sage
Publications, 2002).
H. Zuckerman 'Interviewing an Ultra-Elite', Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (1972)
159-75, republished in N. Fielding (ed.) Interviewing III, (London: SAGE
Publications, 2003).
Endnotes
We would like to thank Prof. Ian Brown and Dr Lizzie Eldridge (QMUC), and we
would also like to acknowledge the theatre practitioners who have agreed to be
interviewed; their invaluable participation has led to a greater understanding of
the theory and ethics of interviewing.
1
2
Odendahl and Shaw (2002) p.299.
3
Odendahl and Shaw (2002) p.301.
4
Zuckerman (2003 p.377; [1972]); see also Dexter (1970) p.14.
In comparison to Dexter's 'Elite' interview method, Kvale (1996) p.6 stresses
the control of the interviewer in the research interview: 'The research interview is
not a conversation between equal partners, because the researchers defines and
controls the situation. The topic of the interview is introduced by the researcher,
5
19
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 6, August 2004
Alison Burke
who also critically follows up on the subject's answers to his or her questions.' On
the control of the interviewer see also Dohrenwend and Richardson (2003,
passim; [1956]).
6
Kvale (1996) p.178.
Zuckerman (2003, p.379; 1972), again drawing on her experience of
interviewing laureate scientists, stresses that an 'Elite' respondent needs to feel
his/her individuality: 'Members of this top elite and presumably others are
accustomed to being treated as individuals who have a mind of their own,
following their own bent. They soon detect whether questions are standardized or
tailored to their interests and histories. They resent being encased in the
straightjacket of standardized questions.' On the requirement not to rigidly stick
to a script see also Odendahl and Shaw (2002) p.311.
7
For example, Kvale (1996) p.130 argues: 'Dynamically, the questions should
promote a positive interaction; keep the flow of the conversation going and
motivate the subjects to talk about their experiences and feelings. The questions
should be easy to understand, short, and devoid of academic language… The
academic research questions need to be translated into an easy-going, colloquial
form to generate spontaneous and rich descriptions.'
8
9
Kvale (1996) pp.165-6.
On the possible mistakes and oversights in transcriptions, see Poland (2002)
p.630-33.
10
Dean and Whyte in Dexter (1970) p.122. The limitation imposed by
retrospection is also briefly noted by Gordon (2003 p178; [1956]), but only to
alert the interviewer to the potential difficulty.
11
12
Kvale (1996) p.181.
13
Burke (2003).
14
Burke (2003).
15
Burke (2003).
16
Haffenden (1991) p. 227.
17
Haffenden (1991) p. 234.
18
Haffenden (1991) p. 241.
19
McDonald (1992) p.129.
20
McDonald (1992) p.131.
21
McDonald (1992) p.133.
22
McDonald (1992) p.142.
20
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays