Nunkoosing, Karl. (2005). \"The Problem

Nunkoosing, Karl. (2005). "The problem with interviews." Qualitative Health Research.

The utility of the interview in the qualitative research process is taken for granted by many students, professors, and researchers. However, the article "The problem with interviews" by Karl Nunkoosing suggests that the interview format contains some inherent problems that must be dealt with, for it to be effective. "The use of the self, of relationship building, of acute awareness of the flow of conversations, of a sensitive awareness of the interviewer's theoretical and professional position, and of his or her research question that qualitative data of high quality are constructed in the interview" when it is used in a positive fashion (Nunkoosing 2005: 698). Nunkoosing does not propose an end to the use of interviews, merely stresses that they must be used in a manner that still allows the interviewee some role in shaping the final narrative of his or her experience.

Interviews are used to solicit 'lived experience' from interviewees. In the case of a health-related research topic, they are often used to bring valuable, subjective anecdotal experience to humanize numerical data (Nunkoosing 2005: 698). For the interview to be valuable, Nunkoosing stresses, the interviewer must remember the purpose of qualitative research and understand the power that he or she has during the interview process to shape the narrative of the interviewee. For qualitative research to be valuable, the interviewer must be intensely self-conscious about his or her role in relation to his or her subject.

Yet even when the interviewer's consciousness is heightened, many allege that a truly equal power relationship between interviewee and interviewer is impossible. 'Seeking reciprocity' is the best that can be achieved, not full equality. A truly 'nonhierarchical' interview is not possible as inequality is hard-wired into the structure of the interview. After all "it is the researcher [alone] who reconstructs the text of the transcript from the talk of the interview" (Nunkoosing 2005: 699). Even individuals of high status in the media who are interviewed have claimed that their words are often taken out of context by an interviewer and misinterpreted. A relatively anonymous, powerless individual in the context of research study seldom has the ability to fully correct what he or she may see as an injustice or a misinterpretation of the truth.

The reasons for such an extremely negative interpretation of the qualitative research interview might partially be grounded in the perception of the interview process as adversarial, as it is depicted on television in the cat-and-mouse game practiced by policemen or lawyers, when questioning criminal suspects. But students who view the process of interviewing in a relatively uncomplicated, question-and-answer format, Nunkoosing states, can be just as judgmental and damaging in the way they solicit information, perhaps even more so because they are unaware of their biases and subjective impressions that influence the process.

Two types of interview processes exist: structured and unstructured, depending on the degree that the researcher governs the process in a formal fashion, and the degree to which he or she shapes the interviewee's narrative with directed questioning. Nunkoosing seems to favor the latter type of interview, however to some degree this is problematic within the context of many research studies, as it is vitally necessary to solicit as specific type of data for comparison. Furthermore, as Nunkoosing admits, even when an interview is unstructured, the problem of power relationships remain as the interviewer is the ultimate shaper of how the final narrative is presented. Nunkoosing is more hopeful about the potential of the unstructured interview to craft meaning, however, given that "the interviewee can choose whatever means is available to him or her to construct his or her story. The interviewer does not just collect data, as if picking daisies; he or she colludes with the interviewee to create, to construct stories" rather than imposes a narrative (Nunkoosing 2005: 701).

Ultimately, despite its acknowledged problems, Nunkoosing believes that the positive benefits conveyed by the qualitative research process of the interview outweigh that of the negatives, so long as the interview is used ethically and honestly. Furthermore, he believes that many of the criticisms of the process may be overstated. Granted, subjects may often lie or consciously or unconsciously circumvent the truth, but the interviewer must be trained and sensitive enough to use probing questions to confirm his or her 'hunch' that the interviewee is not being honest. On the other hand, even in a coercive interview, "even if there is no choice, resistance is always a possibility. People do not want to, and do not have to, reveal everything about themselves" (Nunkoosing 2005: 701). In short, even when an interview is not functioning in an ideal fashion, there are still ways that the format can acknowledge its own limitations and minimize exploitation of the subject.

Perhaps the gravest danger, again, one acknowledged by the author, is not that of outright dishonesty or misinterpretation, but the imposition of preconceived narratives upon the experience of the interviewee. For example, when interviewing someone with a chronic illness, the interviewer often tends to stress the 'need' of the subject to make sense of his or her illness, and may subsume other aspects of the narrative to emphasize this aspect of the patient's life. The problems with this are twofold: valuable insight into the condition is lost, on one hand, and an ethical injustice is done to obligation of the interviewer to illuminate, rather than subsume the truth of the subject. Also, there may be specific aspects of experience particular and unique to the experiences of specific illnesses, and a researcher who is well-versed in one kind may ignore those of other complaints.

The central problem, which Nunkoosing tends to deemphasize, is that the interviewer is a highly subjective lens and brings as personal a view to the subject matter as the interviewee. The point-of-view of the researcher is limited by the interviewer's personality just as much as that of the viewpoint of the interviewee. The interviewee's perspective of his or her own experiences will shift and change over time, just like the interviewer, and like a game of telephone, every personal story is told and retold, first by the interviewee and then by the interviewer.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, however, believes Nunkoosing, and the shaping and reshaping of personal narrative can be an illuminating, rather than a potentially negative aspect of the interview process. Often interview subjects tell the researcher: "That's an interesting idea that I have not thought about before" (Nunkoosing 2005: 702). "The transaction of the interview can be a relationship of mutual benefit to the interviewee and the interviewer…the researcher gives of his or her time and skill to enable the informant to transform his or her subjective thinking into talk," which can have an unintentionally "therapeutic effect for the informant" even though that was not the intended effect of the research (Nunkoosing 2005: 702).

It is difficult to imagine the research-gathering process absent of some type of interview process. And it is important to remember that even quantitative research is shaped by bias in terms of the hypotheses and categories it seeks to study. Creating pre-existing categories for data analysis is an act of interpretation just as conscious as that of recounting an interview, and it could be argued that because data is more inclined to be accepted as fact and more difficult to analyze for bias, quantitative research is even more insidious in its format of allowing researchers to impose their views upon subjects. The interview ostensibly allows the silent subject to speak and add input, albeit in the service of the researcher. "The research interview is not a neutral product of the academy. Like all products of the academy, the interview serves the hegemonic purpose of the culture in which it is produced. In this sense, there is often a political element to the interview, its interpretations, and the texts that are derived from it" (Nunkoosing 2005: 702).