The Practice of Qualitative Research

Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber & Patricia Leavy. (2006). Sage Publications.

Chapter 4. In-Depth Interview (pp. 119-145)

[I chose this chapter to discuss among the VTW research group members. It is written in a plain yet engaging manner with some examples to illustrate the authors' points.]

The authors introduce the significance of in-depth or intensive interview a common method for qualitative research. In comparison with quantitative interview, they argue, qualitative interviews, which are often involved with in-depth interview, should be "knowledge-producing conversation" (p. 128) based upon reciprocal relationships between interviewees and interviewers as well as a sense of shared authority, which regards interviewees as experts.

Similarly, defining the qualitative interview as "co-creation of meaning" (p. 134), the authors call for reflexivity among researchers. In their term:

"The heart of the qualitative interview requires much reflexivity, that is, sensitivity to the important 'situational' dynamics between the researcher and researched that can impact the creation of knowledge" (p. 135)

In the discussion of dealing with difference between researchers and researched, the authors talk about the notions of insiders and outsiders. They argue that one's status as insider/outsider is fluid and prone to change in the course of research. In general, they agree, insiders can bring much in-depth data, yet state the advantage of being an outsider:

"By not belong to a specific group, you may be viewed as more unbiased by your respondent. Likewise, you may be more likely to ask things that you would otherwise take for granted as "shared knowledge" and in fact learn that your participation have their own way of viewing a given issue." (p. 140)

The authors suggest to be mindful of the importance of difference between researchers and researched.

In the discussion of analysis and interpretation of interview data, the authors emphasize the importance of negative cases that do not fit the overall problems, as they are often the most informative. As a way of triangulating data, they suggest to try hard to disprove a researcher's presumed ideas.