Just as working out what to ask, and in what sequence to ask it, depends upon on the spot assessments of the relevance of each part of the interview interaction to your intellectual puzzle and research questions, so does deciding how deeply you want to engage with any one particular issue, or how broadly you want to cover a range of issues.
You may find yourself having to make decisions about the
implications of sacrificing some breadth of coverage for depth on a particular issue in a particular case. You may find you are having difficulty achieving either breadth or depth, because your interviewees are garrulous in ways which are not entirely relevant, so you may have to make an on-the-spot decision about how to get the best – in terms of breadth or depth – out of that particular interaction.
Probably the easiest part is deciding where to begin the interview, and you may well wish to begin all your interviews with a similar opening or ‘warm-up’ question or topic. But as each interview progresses you need constantly to make decisions about what to ask next in the context of that particular interview. This means working out whether you want to ask a question which relates to what you and your interviewee(s) have just been talking about, or whether you want to change the subject and move the interview onto new terrain. Whichever of these you decide to do, the social task is to orchestrate an interaction which moves easily and painlessly between topics and questions. The intellectual task is to try to assess, on the spot, the relevance of each part of the interaction to your research questions, or to what you really want to know. Although you are likely to have some form of aide-memorie to remind you about the topics and issues you are interested in, you nevertheless need to be able to make connections between relevant issues quickly, and to spot and follow up issues which may be relevant, but which you had not anticipated.
Just as working out what to ask, and in what sequence to ask it, depends upon on the spot assessments of the relevance of each part of the interview interaction to your intellectual puzzle and research questions, so does deciding how deeply you want to engage with any one particular issue, or how broadly you want to cover a range of issues. You may find yourself having to make decisions about theimplications of sacrificing some breadth of coverage for depth on a particular issue in a particular case. You may find you are having difficulty achieving either breadth or depth, because your interviewees are garrulous in ways which are not entirely relevant, so you may have to make an on-the-spot decision about how to get the best – in terms of breadth or depth – out of that particular interaction.Probably the easiest part is deciding where to begin the interview, and you may well wish to begin all your interviews with a similar opening or ‘warm-up’ question or topic. But as each interview progresses you need constantly to make decisions about what to ask next in the context of that particular interview. This means working out whether you want to ask a question which relates to what you and your interviewee(s) have just been talking about, or whether you want to change the subject and move the interview onto new terrain. Whichever of these you decide to do, the social task is to orchestrate an interaction which moves easily and painlessly between topics and questions. The intellectual task is to try to assess, on the spot, the relevance of each part of the interaction to your research questions, or to what you really want to know. Although you are likely to have some form of aide-memorie to remind you about the topics and issues you are interested in, you nevertheless need to be able to make connections between relevant issues quickly, and to spot and follow up issues which may be relevant, but which you had not anticipated.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..