Elliot Mishler

Research Interviewing: Context and narrative

The book Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative by Elliot Mishler is a classic work in the field of qualitative research methods. It was first published in 1986 and has been influential in shaping the way that researchers think about and conduct interviews.

Mishler argues that interviews are not simply neutral tools for gathering data, but are rather complex social interactions that are shaped by the context in which they occur and the relationships between the interviewer and the respondent. He also argues that interviews can be seen as narratives, or stories, that are told by the respondent in collaboration with the interviewer.

Mishler’s book is based on his own extensive experience conducting interviews, as well as on his review of the existing literature on interviewing. He provides a detailed and nuanced analysis of the interviewing process, and offers a number of practical suggestions for researchers on how to conduct more effective and insightful interviews.

Some of the key ideas in Mishler’s book include:

  • The importance of context: Interviews are not conducted in a vacuum. They are shaped by the social, cultural, and historical context in which they occur. Researchers need to be aware of this context and how it may influence the interview process and the data that is collected.
  • The relationship between the interviewer and the respondent: The relationship between the interviewer and the respondent is another important factor that shapes the interview process. Researchers need to be mindful of how their own biases and assumptions may influence the interview and the data that is collected.
  • Interviews as narratives: Mishler argues that interviews can be seen as narratives, or stories, that are told by the respondent in collaboration with the interviewer. Researchers need to pay attention to the narrative structure of the interview and to the ways in which the respondent is constructing their story.

Mishler’s book is an essential read for anyone who conducts interviews, whether they are a novice researcher or an experienced professional. It is also a valuable resource for students and scholars who are interested in qualitative research methods.

Here are some of the implications of Mishler’s ideas:

  • Researchers should be mindful of the context in which they conduct interviews and how it may influence the interview process and the data that is collected.
  • Researchers should also be mindful of the relationship between themselves and the respondents and how their own biases and assumptions may influence the interview and the data that is collected.
  • Researchers should pay attention to the narrative structure of the interview and to the ways in which the respondent is constructing their story.

 

Standard Practice

The chapter “Standard Practice” in the book Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative by Elliot Mishler provides an overview of the most common interview practices and techniques, and discusses their strengths and weaknesses.

Mishler begins by distinguishing between two main types of interviews: structured and unstructured. Structured interviews are characterized by a high degree of standardization. The interviewer has a pre-determined set of questions that they ask all respondents in the same order. Unstructured interviews, on the other hand, are more flexible and allow the interviewer to follow the lead of the respondent.

Mishler then goes on to discuss a number of specific interview practices and techniques, including:

  • Questioning: Mishler discusses the different types of questions that can be asked in interviews, such as open-ended questions, closed-ended questions, and follow-up questions. He also discusses the importance of asking questions in a neutral and unbiased way.
  • Probing: Mishler discusses the importance of probing to obtain more detailed and in-depth responses from respondents. He also discusses the different ways to probe, such as asking clarifying questions, asking for examples, and asking for the respondent’s perspective.
  • Active listening: Mishler discusses the importance of active listening, which involves paying attention to the respondent’s verbal and nonverbal cues, and providing feedback to indicate that you are listening and understanding.
  • Field notes: Mishler discusses the importance of taking field notes during interviews. Field notes can be used to record observations about the interview setting, the respondent’s nonverbal behavior, and any other relevant information.
  • Transcription: Mishler discusses the importance of transcribing interviews as soon as possible after they are conducted. Transcription allows the researcher to carefully review the interview and to identify any patterns or themes that may emerge.

Mishler concludes the chapter by discussing the importance of reflexivity in interview research. Reflexivity involves reflecting on your own biases and assumptions, and how they may influence the interview process and the data that is collected.

Here are some of the key points from Mishler’s chapter on standard practice in interview research:

  • There are two main types of interviews: structured and unstructured. Structured interviews are characterized by a high degree of standardization, while unstructured interviews are more flexible and allow the interviewer to follow the lead of the respondent.
  • Some of the most common interview practices and techniques include questioning, probing, active listening, field notes, and transcription.
  • It is important to be mindful of your own biases and assumptions when conducting interviews, and to reflect on how they may influence the interview process and the data that is collected.

Mishler’s chapter on standard practice is a valuable resource for anyone who conducts interviews, whether they are a novice researcher or an experienced professional. It provides a comprehensive overview of the most common interview practices and techniques, and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. It also highlights the importance of reflexivity in interview research.

 

Research Interviews as Speech Events

In the chapter “Research Interviews as Speech Events” in his book Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Elliot Mishler argues that interviews are not simply neutral tools for gathering data, but are rather complex speech events that are shaped by the context in which they occur and the relationships between the interviewer and the respondent.

Mishler draws on the work of speech act theorists such as J.L. Austin and John Searle to argue that interviews are a type of speech act, or a type of action that is performed through language. He argues that the interviewer and the respondent are both active participants in the interview process, and that the interview is a joint production of both parties.

Mishler identifies a number of key features of research interviews as speech events. These include:

  • Turn-taking: Interviews are characterized by a turn-taking system, in which the interviewer and the respondent alternate asking and answering questions. This turn-taking system is governed by a set of social rules and norms.
  • Sequencing: Interviews also have a sequential structure, with a beginning, middle, and end. The sequence of the interview is shaped by the interviewer’s agenda, the respondent’s responses, and the turn-taking system.
  • Repair: Interviews are also characterized by repair mechanisms, which are ways of dealing with disruptions in the flow of the conversation. For example, if the respondent does not understand a question, or if they give a response that is not clear or complete, the interviewer may use a repair mechanism to get the respondent back on track.
  • Framing: The interviewer’s questions and other utterances are used to frame the interview and to guide the respondent’s responses. For example, the interviewer may ask questions that lead the respondent to tell a particular kind of story, or they may use their questions to focus the respondent’s attention on a particular topic.

Mishler argues that the interviewer’s framing of the interview is particularly important, as it can shape the respondent’s understanding of the interview and their responses to the interviewer’s questions.

Mishler concludes the chapter by discussing the implications of his view of interviews as speech events for interview research. He argues that researchers need to be aware of the ways in which the interview context, the relationship between the interviewer and the respondent, and the interviewer’s framing of the interview can shape the data that is collected.

Here are some of the key points from Mishler’s chapter on research interviews as speech events:

  • Interviews are complex speech events that are shaped by the context in which they occur and the relationships between the interviewer and the respondent.
  • Interviews are characterized by turn-taking, sequencing, repair, and framing.
  • The interviewer’s framing of the interview is particularly important, as it can shape the respondent’s understanding of the interview and their responses to the interviewer’s questions.
  • Researchers need to be aware of the ways in which the interview context, the relationship between the interviewer and the respondent, and the interviewer’s framing of the interview can shape the data that is collected.

Mishler’s chapter on research interviews as speech events is a valuable resource for anyone who conducts interviews, whether they are a novice researcher or an experienced professional. It provides a theoretical framework for understanding interviews as complex social interactions, and it highlights the importance of context, relationship, and framing in interview research.

The Joint Construction of Meaning

In the chapter “The Joint Construction of Meaning” in his book Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Elliot Mishler argues that meaning in interviews is constructed jointly by the interviewer and the respondent. He draws on the work of social constructionists such as Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann to argue that meaning is not inherent in the world, but is rather created by people through their interactions with each other.

Mishler argues that the interview is a particular type of social interaction in which the interviewer and the respondent are engaged in a joint project of meaning-making. The interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers are both shaped by their shared cultural knowledge and by their own individual experiences and perspectives.

Mishler identifies a number of ways in which the interviewer and the respondent jointly construct meaning in interviews. These include:

  • Narrative structure: Mishler argues that interviews often take on a narrative structure, with the respondent telling a story to the interviewer. The interviewer’s questions and other utterances can help to shape the narrative structure of the interview, and the respondent’s answers can be seen as contributions to the story.
  • Metacommunicative cues: Mishler also discusses the importance of metacommunicative cues in the joint construction of meaning. Metacommunicative cues are nonverbal and verbal cues that are used to communicate about the communication process itself. For example, the interviewer’s tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language can all communicate metacommunicative cues to the respondent.
  • Shared cultural knowledge: Mishler argues that the interviewer and the respondent rely on their shared cultural knowledge to construct meaning in the interview. This shared cultural knowledge includes things like common sense knowledge, social norms, and cultural values.

Mishler concludes the chapter by discussing the implications of his view of meaning in interviews for interview research. He argues that researchers need to be aware of the ways in which they are jointly constructing meaning with the respondent in the interview. He also argues that researchers need to be careful not to impose their own meanings on the respondent’s words and actions.

Here are some of the key points from Mishler’s chapter on the joint construction of meaning in interviews:

  • Meaning in interviews is constructed jointly by the interviewer and the respondent.
  • The interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers are both shaped by their shared cultural knowledge and by their own individual experiences and perspectives.
  • Interviews often take on a narrative structure, with the respondent telling a story to the interviewer.
  • The interviewer’s tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language can all communicate metacommunicative cues to the respondent.
  • The interviewer and the respondent rely on their shared cultural knowledge to construct meaning in the interview.
  • Researchers need to be aware of the ways in which they are jointly constructing meaning with the respondent in the interview.
  • Researchers need to be careful not to impose their own meanings on the respondent’s words and actions.

Mishler’s chapter on the joint construction of meaning is a valuable resource for anyone who conducts interviews, whether they are a novice researcher or an experienced professional. It provides a theoretical framework for understanding interviews as social interactions in which meaning is constructed jointly by the interviewer and the respondent. It also highlights the importance of being aware of the ways in which the interviewer can influence the meaning-making process.

Language, Meaning and Narrative analysis

n the chapter “Language, Meaning and Narrative Analysis” in his book Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Elliot Mishler discusses the importance of language, meaning, and narrative analysis in interview research. He argues that language is not simply a tool for conveying information, but is rather a way of constructing meaning. He also argues that narrative analysis is a valuable tool for understanding the meaning of interviews.

Mishler begins by discussing the different ways in which language is used in interviews. He argues that the interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers can be seen as linguistic performances that are designed to achieve specific communicative goals. For example, the interviewer’s questions may be designed to elicit information, to guide the respondent’s narrative, or to establish rapport. The respondent’s answers may be designed to provide information, to tell a story, or to manage the interview process.

Mishler then goes on to discuss the importance of meaning in interview research. He argues that researchers need to be concerned with the meaning of the respondent’s words and actions, as well as the meaning of their own questions and utterances. He also argues that the meaning of an interview is not fixed, but rather is constructed through the interaction between the interviewer and the respondent.

Mishler concludes the chapter by discussing the use of narrative analysis in interview research. He argues that narrative analysis is a valuable tool for understanding the meaning of interviews because it allows researchers to examine the narrative structure of the interview, the respondent’s use of language, and the ways in which the respondent tells their story.

Here are some of the key points from Mishler’s chapter on language, meaning, and narrative analysis in interview research:

  • Language is not simply a tool for conveying information, but is rather a way of constructing meaning.
  • The interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers can be seen as linguistic performances that are designed to achieve specific communicative goals.
  • Researchers need to be concerned with the meaning of the respondent’s words and actions, as well as the meaning of their own questions and utterances.
  • The meaning of an interview is not fixed, but rather is constructed through the interaction between the interviewer and the respondent.
  • Narrative analysis is a valuable tool for understanding the meaning of interviews because it allows researchers to examine the narrative structure of the interview, the respondent’s use of language, and the ways in which the respondent tells their story.
 

Meaning in context and Empowering the Respondents

In the chapter “Meaning in Context and Empowering the Respondents” in his book Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Elliot Mishler discusses the importance of considering context and empowering respondents in interview research.

Mishler argues that the meaning of an interview cannot be separated from the context in which it takes place. He writes that “the interview is a social interaction that is shaped by the social and cultural context in which it occurs.” He also argues that the interviewer’s own biases and assumptions can influence the meaning of the interview.

Mishler also emphasizes the importance of empowering respondents in interview research. He writes that “the respondent is not a passive object of research, but rather is an active participant in the interview process.” He argues that researchers should strive to create an interview environment in which respondents feel comfortable and respected.

Here are some specific ways in which Mishler suggests that researchers can empower respondents in interviews:

  • Be clear and transparent about the purpose of the interview and how the data will be used.
  • Give respondents the opportunity to choose whether or not to participate in the interview and to withdraw from the interview at any time.
  • Use respectful and non-judgmental language.
  • Ask open-ended questions that allow respondents to tell their stories in their own words.
  • Listen carefully to respondents’ answers and avoid interrupting them.
  • Provide respondents with opportunities to clarify their answers and to ask questions of their own.
  • Validate respondents’ experiences and perspectives.

Mishler concludes the chapter by arguing that by considering context and empowering respondents, researchers can produce more ethical and rigorous interview research.

Here are some of the implications of Mishler’s ideas:

  • Researchers should be mindful of the context in which they conduct interviews and how it may influence the meaning of the interview.
  • Researchers should also be mindful of their own biases and assumptions and how they may influence the meaning of the interview.
  • Researchers should strive to create an interview environment in which respondents feel comfortable and respected.
  • Researchers should be transparent about the purpose of the interview and how the data will be used.
  • Researchers should give respondents the opportunity to choose whether or not to participate in the interview and to withdraw from the interview at any time.
  • Researchers should use respectful and non-judgmental language.
  • Researchers should ask open-ended questions that allow respondents to tell their stories in their own words.
  • Researchers should listen carefully to respondents’ answers and avoid interrupting them.
  • Researchers should provide respondents with opportunities to clarify their answers and to ask questions of their own.
  • Researchers should validate respondents’ experiences and perspectives.

Mishler’s work has had a significant impact on the field of interview research. His ideas about context, empowerment, and meaning have helped researchers to develop more ethical and rigorous interview practices.

Conclusion Prospects for critical research

In the chapter “Conclusion: Prospects for Critical Research” in his book Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Elliot Mishler discusses the prospects for critical research in interview research.

Mishler argues that critical research in interview research is essential for understanding the power dynamics involved in interviewing and for producing more ethical and rigorous research. He defines critical research as “research that seeks to expose and challenge the power relations that shape the interview process and the production of knowledge.”

Mishler identifies a number of ways in which critical research can be applied to interview research. These include:

  • Examining the power relations between the interviewer and the respondent. Mishler argues that it is important to examine the power relations between the interviewer and the respondent in order to understand how they may influence the interview process and the data that is collected. For example, the interviewer’s social status, race, gender, and other factors may give them power over the respondent.
  • Analyzing the ways in which language is used in interviews. Mishler argues that it is important to analyze the ways in which language is used in interviews in order to understand how it may construct and reproduce power relations. For example, the interviewer’s use of certain words or phrases may subtly influence the respondent’s answers.
  • Examining the researcher’s own biases and assumptions. Mishler argues that it is important for researchers to examine their own biases and assumptions in order to avoid imposing their own views on the respondent. For example, the researcher’s own cultural background or political beliefs may influence the way they interpret the respondent’s answers.

Mishler concludes the chapter by arguing that critical research in interview research is essential for producing more ethical and rigorous research. He writes that “critical research can help us to understand the power relations that shape the interview process and the production of knowledge. It can also help us to be more aware of our own biases and assumptions as researchers. This awareness is essential for producing research that is fair, accurate, and respectful of the respondent.”

Here are some of the implications of Mishler’s ideas:

  • Researchers should be aware of the power relations between the interviewer and the respondent and how they may influence the interview process and the data that is collected.
  • Researchers should also be aware of the ways in which language is used in interviews to construct and reproduce power relations.
  • Researchers should examine their own biases and assumptions in order to avoid imposing their own views on the respondent.
  • Critical research in interview research is essential for producing more ethical and rigorous research.

Mishler’s work has had a significant impact on the field of interview research. His ideas about power, language, and reflexivity have helped researchers to develop more critical and ethical approaches to interview research.