Interviewing the Interpretive Researcher: An Impressionist Tale

Qualitative researchers strive authentically to capture and to relay the genuine experiences of people through writing a text of social accounts, which, as noted by Denzin and Lincoln (2005), creates the "inescapable problem of representation" (p. 19). Further, considering the encounter that occurs between the researcher(s) and participant(s) in interpretive research, Moustakas (1994) focused on the wholeness of the qualitative research process rather than on its parts to provide deeper meanings of experiences rather than to provide explanations of experiences. Indeed, the story of the research relationships, both between participant and researcher and between the researcher and his or her data collection process is influential in coloring and contextualizing the written account of the research story. In fact, Ellis and Bochner (2000) identified the researcher as a subject and postulated that becoming a "vulnerable observer" involves creating a personal story of "what went on in the backstage of doing research" (p. 741). Reflexivity, in some form, has been advanced as an important means for critically evaluating the whole qualitative research process (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009). According to Alvesson and Skoldberg (2009), reflexivity typically involves the "complex relationship between process of knowledge production and the various contexts of such processes, as well as the involvement of the knowledge producer" (p. 8). As noted by Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2007): The reflexive researcher's perspective begins with an understanding of the importance of one's own values and attitudes in relation to the research process. This recognition begins prior to entering the field. Reflexivity means taking a critical look inward and reflecting on one's lived reality and experiences; this self-reflection or journey can be extremely helpful in the research process.... Reflexivity is the process through which a researcher recognizes, examines, and understands how his or her social background and assumptions can intervene in the research process .... Reflexivity goes to the heart of an in-depth interview; it is a process whereby the researcher is sensitive to the important 'situational' dynamics that exist between the researcher and the researched that can affect the creation of knowledge. (pp. 129-130) Reflexivity can be enhanced using a number of strategies (e.g., keeping a fieldwork journal; Kleinman & Copp, 1993). A particularly useful technique is peer debriefing (Arber, 2006). Broadly speaking, peer debriefing involves the researcher providing information about the implementation and evolution of a research study to an impartial colleague (i.e., "disinterested peer"; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 308), who critically reviews this information at one or more stages of the research process and provides feedback regarding the appropriateness of the data collection and data analysis procedures, the trustworthiness and completeness of the researcher's findings, and the overall progress of the investigation. By "disinterested," the colleague (i.e., debriefer) does not have a stake in the direction of the findings. Also, the peer debriefer might help the researcher to plan the next methodological steps. As noted by Lietz and Zayas (2010), "Peer debriefing can help to promote reflexivity allowing researchers to become more sensitized to the effects of their socio-political position" (p. 196). Moreover, peer debriefing is particularly useful for "exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer's mind" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 308). Recently, researchers have advocated a more structured form of peer debriefing, which involves the practice of the interpretive researcher serving as an interviewee in a series of formal debriefing interviews with the researcher(s)--a technique known as interviewing the investigator (Chenail, 1997, 2011) or interviewing the (interpretive) researcher (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins, 2008)--for the deeper understanding of not only the research process, but also the research relationships that ensue through interviewing (Nelson, Onwuegbuzie, Wines, & Frels, 2012). …