I admit that after the interview, I was stunned and unsure how to proceed.
I had structured the life history section of the study as two interviews,
a structure I thought would allow both the informant and the researcher the
opportunity to reflect on what had been shared initially and to clarify or further
elaborate key details. In Sabine’s case, the second interview gave her
the chance to pull back emotionally, and she did; she was more reserved,
more cautious, somewhat less forthcoming. She didn’t refer to that story
again, and I didn’t bring it up. But she also didn’t withdraw that information
from the study, and I realize now that she didn’t understand that she
could do that. I don’t think she had the sophistication to recognize that all
that she had shared with me were data and that she had ownership of it.
I realize now that her consent, at that point in the study, was not fully
informed. But given the intensely personal nature of the sharing in that first
interview, I’m unsure how I should have handled it. I certainly couldn’t
have turned that story away there was some value for her in telling it. But
I could and should have told her, especially in the second interview, that I
would not ever use that information. I have not and will not. But the issue
remains about the intimacy created in this kind of interview situation that
itself can elicit truths not intended to be shared.