Reflecting on Novice Qualitative Interviewer Mistakes

The literature is replete with advice, techniques and best practices on conducting qualitative in-depth interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Lillrank, 2012; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011; Myers & Newman, 2007; Tracy, 2010; Turner, 2010). There are also words of caution: advice on how to avoid communicative barriers that are erected from certain interviewer behaviors (Clark & Sharf, 2007; La Pastina, 2006; Mallozzi, 2009; Myers & Newman, 2007). But what if, despite your best intentions, you emerge from the interview only to realize you made mistakes that limited the voice of your participants in favor of your own? In this article, I identify several "interview don'ts" that arose upon reflection of my initial qualitative interviewing experience. Using this data, I answer the question: In what ways do qualitative interviewer's mistakes construct communicative barriers between themselves and their research participants? That I won't be focusing on the aspects of the interview process I handled well does not mean I don't feel they exist. In many instances, my questions were clear and open-ended, and I offered continuous cues to my participants to indicate I was interested and engaged in what they were saying (Mallozzi, 2009). All of the participants thanked me for inviting them to share their experiences and stories. However, in this article, I have chosen to focus on the mistakes I made because I found this analysis much more helpful and insightful to my development as a novice researcher than an analysis of the "do's" I employed. The rationale behind this study is based on the importance of reflexive practice as a qualitative researcher, as well as useful tool for other beginners like me who have recently eaten a slice of humble pie. I suspect there are others who made all the right preparations yet emerged from the process wondering how so much could have gone wrong. This article does not seek to offer an explanation for these unexpected results, but rather to highlight the fact that they do occur and to present a personal account of the reflexive process I used to identify and learn from them. I offer the lessons learned on the qualitative interview process: before, during and after. Literature Review The qualitative interview method is used to elicit data from those with a unique or insightful perspective on the issues we want to learn more about. We design a space in which they can share their stories and experiences. We allow ourselves as researcher to co-construct the meaning that emerges from the qualitative interview, to a certain degree (Roulston, DeMarrais, & Lewis, 2003). However, we are careful not to over-insert ourselves into the space we've created for our participants, in a way that would negatively impact our ability to hear their voices. After all that is what we are here to learn about; their voice is the focus, not ours, despite the influence we as the researcher have on the meaning derived from the interview. Balancing the tension between self and other during qualitative interviews is a craft. There is no checklist that ensures a "good qualitative interview." Mastering the craft comes with personal judgment and practical skill derived through experience (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Novice qualitative researchers approach the interview method having neither and as a result, make mistakes that negatively impact the data collection process. DeMarrais (2004) describes these mistakes as lengthy questions, yes/no questions, using vague generalizations to form questions, leading the participant and failing to pursue emergent references during the interview. Myers and Newman (2007, p. 12), in presenting the interview as a drama and the interviewer as an actor, describe additional mistakes that can be made in qualitative interviews including to "over-direct the performance" which prevents the interview plot from developing, and talking too much which can "stifle the interviewee and restrict the amount of data disclosed. …