“Ordinary conversations are about sociability and maintaining a relationship, while interviews are more about making a relationship to help find an answer to a research question” (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 99).

For this Discussion, you will view videos that depict different interviewing techniques. You will then analyze and evaluate the techniques used, and you will discuss how you will utilize best practices when you conduct your own interviews.

To prepare for this Discussion:

• Review Chapter 12 of the Rubin and Rubin course text.
• Review the two media segments on interviewing. As you view the videos, practice your observation skills by creating field notes for yourself. Be careful to distinguish between observation and interpretation as Dr. Crawford warns in the videos.
• Consider the following questions for your post to evaluate the techniques used in each interview. Which practices could you use in your own interview? Which practices should you avoid? Where did the person in the video go wrong? How could this issue have been avoided or corrected?

ASSIGNMENT

Post a 2- to 3-paragraph evaluation of the interview techniques used in both interviews. Include commentary and analysis of best practices, practices to avoid, and how this viewing experience will inform your approach to the interviewing assignment introduced in this week’s Major Assignment.

When appropriate, be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the reading(s) and/or video program(s) and use APA format.

apa required

turn it in required 

Required Readings

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chapter 1, “An Introduction to Codes and Coding” (pp. 1–42) (previously read in Weeks 5 and 6)
Chapter 2, “Writing Analytic Memos About Narrative and Visual Data” (pp. 43–65) (previously read in Weeks 5 and 6)

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chapter 5, “Methods of Data Collection” (pp. 145–183)
Chapter 7, “An Integrative Approach to Data Analysis” (pp. 215–236) (previously read in Weeks 5 and 6)
Chapter 8, “Methods and Processes of Data Analysis” (pp. 237–270) (previously read in Weeks 5 and 6)

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chapter 6, “Conversational Partnerships” (pp. 71–93)
Chapter 7, “The Responsive Interview as an Extended Conversation” (pp. 95–114)
Chapter 8, “Structure of the Responsive Interview” (pp. 115–129)
Chapter 9, “Designing Main Questions and Probes” (pp. 131–147)
Chapter 10, “Preparing Follow-Up Questions” (pp. 149–169)
Chapter 12, “Data Analysis in the Responsive Interviewing Model” (pp. 189–211) (previously read in Weeks 5 and 6)

Yob, I., & Brewer, P. (n.d.). Working toward the common good: An online university’s perspectives  on social change, 1-25.
 Student 1

Although both interviewing techniques video are face to face interview, the manner and way the interview was conducted in interviewing techniques part one and interviewing techniques part two are different. In the first interview segment the interviewer made several errors at the very beginning. Dr. Linda Crawford did not give the interviewee Laura sufficient or adequate information about what the interview was about, and that how the interview will be taped, as well as the length of the interview. When Laura entered the session, the room was not made safe for her evidenced by the hanging tape recorder chord and the interviewer did not rise to greet her. The desk was too small, as were the chairs and the interviewer did not take the time to make sure the equipment was working before the interview started. When you interview someone, you should make certain to attend to these items so that the interviewee feels welcome and respected (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). When Laura asked about the time commitment the interviewer responded “Oh, that was in the stuff I sent you.” (Laureate Education, 2016). Rushing past the chance to calm any fears Laura may have had. The interviewer also seemed to be a bit dismissive about Laura’s question regarding her taking notes and recording the session. The confidentiality aspect of the interview was not thoroughly explained. Participants are sometimes reluctant to be interviewed because they do not want to be identified. Researchers should take great care to ensure participants anonymity and confidentiality (Rubin & Rubin, 2012) and this was not done here.  The interviewer also failed to explain what her role was in the interview and she failed to fully explain how the results of the interview were going to be used (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The interviewer did take notes, however, when she did so she did not make eye contact with Laura for long periods of time almost signifying disengagement (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The interviewer also signaled some judgment about Laura’s responses with her verbal and non-verbal communications. Interviewers can display sympathy but judgments about the responses are not to be made (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Rushing the participant, being disengaged, not respecting the participants time, and not being fully transparent are all things to avoid when conducting qualitative interviews. Laura showed some body language and was somehow shocked when Dr. Crawford told her that she has 5 questions and the look on Laura’s face was not pleasant as she asked Dr. Crawford how long was the interview going to take? Even though Laura told Dr. Crawford that she thinks that the interview will be okay, Laura went further by asking if Dr. Crawford was taking notes or something as well as taping the interview. Laura was in a hurry to finish the interview as she keeps interrupting Dr. Crawford by telling her “I have to go.” Also, Dr. Crawford did not make enough eye contact with Laura as she was constantly taking notes. The interview was ineffective and caused confusion, anxiety and discomfort for Laura.

The second interview session was much more professional. The room was set up to make Laura comfortable, and she was greeted properly. The interviewer did a good job of explaining the purpose of the interview, how the results were going to be used, who else was participating, and how the session was going to be conducted including taking notes and audio recording. In this session the interviewer gave Laura a chance to ask questions and she made sure that Laura understood her participation was totally voluntary. The interviewer also smiled when she spoke thereby releasing tension and making Laura feel comfortable (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The interviewer also asked follow-up questions evidenced by the following exchange;  LAURA: Workplace morale I would say basically means that it’s a fun place to work, that it’s a place where you are looking forward to getting up and going to every day and that there’s nice people there that you enjoy working with. LINDA: What makes it fun? (Laureate Education, 2016). You should not assume that you know what meaning an interviewee has given to a word or phrase you should ask follow-up questions for clarity (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). You should also use the participants own words when asking follow-up questions to preserve context (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The interviewer allowed the interview to move at Laura’s own pace, she circled back to questions to give Laura a chance to expand upon her answer and she showed respect for Laura’s time by letting her know when time was up but invited her to continue if she wanted to. Asking permission; to extend the time, to record the session, to circle back to previous questions along with showing sympathy and maintaining a pleasant disposition are all important aspects to conducting a successful interview and should be considered best practices (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). These actions build trust and rapport and help establish relationships between the interviewer and the participant.

This viewing experience helped me to understand that I have a lot to learn about interviewing. Qualitative interviewing is more than just a casual conversation. Qualitative interviews, if done right, are carefully planned, rigorously conducted, and they allow for study to be enhanced by interviewees (Laureate Education, 2016). Choosing the right participants, selecting a good location, asking the right questions, and conducting a rigorous analysis are all part of a comprehensive qualitative interview. Interviewing is a skill that takes time and practice. I will make errors, but I am encouraged to know that even experienced interviewers make mistakes (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Doctoral research: Interviewing techniques, part one Video File]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Doctoral research: Interviewing techniques, part two Video File]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Ravitch, S.M., & Carl, N.M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

 

Student 2

Analysis for Best Practices in Interviewing

“Ordinary conversations are about sociability and maintaining a relationship, while interviews are more about making a relationship to help find an answer to a research question”

  (Rubin &Rubin,2012,p.99)

Authors Rubin and Rubin in their quote on sociability and maintaining relationship want to reflect the importance of theology and methodology while developing a relationship with the interviewee to obtain the answers for a research paper. However, I had to watch the video three times to realize the video had no introduction, body or conclusion.  Dr. Linda Crawford jumped from one topic to the other without organization.   The start was baffling, Dr. Linda Crawford spoke on body language and conducted interviews on 230, then mentioned about interview observations and language. It was so confusing. I obtained observation was Laura rolled her arms and interpretation of interview Laura getting offended. From readings of Rubin and Rubin, “The interviewer also failed to explain what the role was in the interview and she failed to full explain how results of the interview was going to be used. The results of this interview was disastrous. Laura who was interviewed did not know what the interview was on or how long it would last. The questions seemed as though never given to Laura. It was transparent that Dr. Linda Crawford did not prepare for this interview or had the organization to conduct an interview for her “work moral”.  It would be recommended that Dr. Linda Crawford outline and plan her interview before getting anyone to give information on the topic of research. My biggest appreciation for this interview is be prepared as write up the area of research with questions, inform the interviewee, outline the area of research, stay on topic and be respectful towards others participation.

Video two:

The second interview Dr. Linda Crawford presented with Laura was much more well developed and structured for a one-on-one interview.  Dr. Linda Crawford was welcoming, outlined the purpose of the interview.

1. Why it was important to have an interviewees feedback?

2. What the interview results would be used for?

3. How the interview would help the research topic?

Dr. Linda Crawford respected Laura and stayed on topic writing down all the information required for the research analysis.  The interviewer gave Laura the question then reassured it was voluntary and she would always ask for permission on audio taping.

“Asking permission to extend the time by conducting a successful interview and should be considered best practices” (Rubin& Rubin, 2012).

Final Findings on Qualitative Practices for Interviewing

Upon viewing two videos on interviewing on Walden University Blackboard with Dr. Laura Crawford with Laura I was appreciative to get examples on proper and improper ways to interview for with  a research project.  The theology of qualitative interviewing is staging the proper methodology for the interviewee.  I learned as a researcher to have an environment with an atmosphere of equality, plan for the interviewee, practice, provide information to interviewee and supply full information to who ever I interview.  I learned by watching these two videos the importance of being mindful, respectful, welcoming, professional and avoiding being bias.

 

References

 

 

 

Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Doctoral research: Interviewing techniques, part one Video File]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Doctoral research: Interviewing techniques, part two Video File]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Ravitch, S.M., & Carl, N.M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

 

Student 1

 

Although

 

both

 

interviewing

 

techniques

 

video

 

are

 

face

 

to

 

face

 

interview,

 

the

 

manner

 

and

 

way

 

the

 

interview

 

was

 

conducted

 

in

 

interviewing

 

techniques

 

part

 

one

 

and

 

interviewing

 

techniques

 

part

 

two

 

are

 

different.

 

In

 

the

 

first

 

interview

 

segment

 

the

 

interviewer

 

ma

de

 

several

 

errors

 

at

 

the

 

very

 

beginning.

 

Dr.

 

Linda

 

Crawford

 

did

 

not

 

give

 

the

 

interviewee

 

Laura

 

sufficient

 

or

 

adequate

 

information

 

about

 

what

 

the

 

interview

 

was

 

about,

 

and

 

that

 

how

 

the

 

interview

 

will

 

be

 

taped,

 

as

 

well

 

as

 

the

 

length

 

of

 

the

 

interview.

 

When

 

Lau

ra

 

entered

 

the

 

session,

 

the

 

room

 

was

 

not

 

made

 

safe

 

for

 

her

 

evidenced

 

by

 

the

 

hanging

 

tape

 

recorder

 

chord

 

and

 

the

 

interviewer

 

did

 

not

 

rise

 

to

 

greet

 

her.

 

The

 

desk

 

was

 

too

 

small,

 

as

 

were

 

the

 

chairs

 

and

 

the

 

interviewer

 

did

 

not

 

take

 

the

 

time

 

to

 

make

 

sure

 

the

 

equ

ipment

 

was

 

working

 

before

 

the

 

interview

 

started.

 

When

 

you

 

interview

 

someone,

 

you

 

should

 

make

 

certain

 

to

 

attend

 

to

 

these

 

items

 

so

 

that

 

the

 

interviewee

 

feels

 

welcome

 

and

 

respected

 

(Ravitch

 

&

 

Carl,

 

2016).

 

When

 

Laura

 

asked

 

about

 

the

 

time

 

commitment

 

the

 

intervi

ewer

 

responded

 

“Oh,

 

that

 

was

 

in

 

the

 

stuff

 

I

 

sent

 

you.”

 

(Laureate

 

Education,

 

2016).

 

Rushing

 

past

 

the

 

chance

 

to

 

calm

 

any

 

fears

 

Laura

 

may

 

have

 

had.

 

The

 

interviewer

 

also

 

seemed

 

to

 

be

 

a

 

bit

 

dismissive

 

about

 

Laura’s

 

question

 

regarding

 

her

 

taking

 

notes

 

and

 

record

ing

 

the

 

session.

 

The

 

confidentiality

 

aspect

 

of

 

the

 

interview

 

was

 

not

 

thoroughly

 

explained.

 

Participants

 

are

 

sometimes

 

reluctant

 

to

 

be

 

interviewed

 

because

 

they

 

do

 

not

 

want

 

to

 

be

 

identified.

 

Researchers

 

should

 

take

 

great

 

care

 

to

 

ensure

 

participants

 

anonymity

 

and

 

confidentiality

 

(Rubin

 

&

 

Rubin,

 

2012)

 

and

 

this

 

was

 

not

 

done

 

here.

 

 

The

 

interviewer

 

also

 

failed

 

to

 

explain

 

what

 

her

 

role

 

was

 

in

 

the

 

interview

 

and

 

she

 

failed

 

to

 

fully

 

explain

 

how

 

the

 

results

 

of

 

the

 

interview

 

were

 

going

 

to

 

be

 

used

 

(Rubin

 

&

 

Rubin,

 

2012).

 

The

 

interviewer

 

did

 

take

 

notes,

 

however,

 

when

 

she

 

did

 

so

 

she

 

did

 

not

 

make

 

eye

 

contact

 

with

 

Laura

 

for

 

long

 

periods

 

of

 

time

 

almost

 

signifying

 

disengagement

 

(Ravitch

 

&

 

Carl,

 

2016).

 

The

 

interviewer

 

also

 

signaled

 

some

 

judgment

 

about

 

Laura’s

 

responses

 

with

 

her

 

v

erbal

 

and

 

non

–

verbal

 

communications.

 

Interviewers

 

can

 

display

 

sympathy

 

but

 

judgments

 

about

 

the

 

responses

 

are

 

not

 

to

 

be

 

made

 

(Rubin

 

&

 

Rubin,

 

2012).

 

Rushing

 

the

 

participant,

 

being

 

disengaged,

 

not

 

respecting

 

the

 

participants

 

time,

 

and

 

not

 

being

 

fully

 

transpar

ent

 

are

 

all

 

things

 

to

 

avoid

 

when

 

conducting

 

qualitative

 

interviews.

 

Laura

 

showed

 

some

 

body

 

language

 

and

 

was

 

somehow

 

shocked

 

when

 

Dr.

 

Crawford

 

told

 

her

 

that

 

she

 

has

 

5

 

questions

 

and

 

the

 

look

 

on

 

Laura’s

 

face

 

was

 

not

 

pleasant

 

as

 

she

 

asked

 

Dr.

 

Crawford

 

how

 

long

 

was

 

the

 

interview

 

going

 

to

 

take?

 

Even

 

though

 

Laura

 

told

 

Dr.

 

Crawford

 

that

 

she

 

thinks

 

that

 

the

 

interview

 

will

 

be

 

okay,

 

Laura

 

went

 

further

 

by

 

asking

 

if

 

Dr.

 

Crawford

 

was

 

taking

 

notes

 

or

 

something

 

as

 

well

 

as

 

taping

 

the

 

interview.

 

Laura