# data[].attributes.body
Definitely a lot to chew on as my classmates have already commented. I guess this is something I'm struggling with as an educator/adult wanting to research/interview students/youth.

The dynamics will shift if I later choose to expand my study and include fellow educators or administrators.

# data[].attributes.headline
Researchers as naturalists & constructivists 

# data[].attributes.subject
Researchers as naturalists & constructivists 

# data[].attributes.body
I liked the idea of viewing qualitative researchers as naturalists.

"It is assumed that we can learn from others and that by interacting, reflecting, and reconstructing what was experienced, we can reach shared meanings and understandings, and therefore acquire insight into the complexities of specific aspects of life" (Schutz, 1967;Seidman, 2013).

Ultimately, we are making sense of the world and co-constructing knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
The researcher was also a GP as they interviewed GPs, which not only automatically made the researcher an insider, but the participants felt comfortable using jargon as there was a shared understanding/language being used. But this also created other challenges for the participants where they saw the researcher as an expert and felt vulnerability and judgement. This makes me want to rethink using student assistants to support the interviews with their peers (the demographic of my study). How can we account for these factors and make the best decision based on what we do know about researchers and participants?

# data[].attributes.body
Listen more and talk less!! My biggest takeaway that can be applicable to both interviews and life. :)

# data[].attributes.body
I find all of these readings interesting because they're using different terms, but same definitions. Like orienting questions (Roberts, 2020) are also introductory questions (Castillo-Montoya, 2016); key questions (Castillo-Montoya, 2016) are also known as main questions (Roberts, 2020). There are also different terms used for interview protocol/script within the readings, and many more. Did anyone else get confused by all the different and inconsistent terminology used by qualitative researchers?

# data[].attributes.body
“...although qualitative interview might need a certain amount of structure, the interview also has to flow freely, giving the research participant the freedom to describe things from their own perspective without manipulation from the researcher (Roberts, 2020, p. 3192)."

Flexibility seems to be key in A LOT of what we do--not just in research, but in teaching, our work, etc. I think this is the key thing I need to remember, rather than making sure everything is perfect since there can be many unknowns and factors completely outside of our control.

# data[].attributes.body
The author recommends conducting focus groups after engaging in field work and before conducting dyadic interviews/questionnaires, but there was not strong reason as to why. Anyone have any thoughts? What if you do focus groups before engaging in field work? What are the potential challenges, setbacks, and harm?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Four-Phase Process to Interview Protocol Refinement (IPR)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Four-Phase Process to Interview Protocol Refinement (IPR)

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciated how clear the IPR frame work was. The interview protocol framework is comprised of four-phases:

Phase 1: Ensuring interview questions align with research questions

Phase 2: Constructing an inquiry-based conversation

Phase 3: Receiving feedback on interview protocols

Phase 4: Piloting the interview protocol

I also appreciated the reminder of why we are doing this: "The purpose of in-depth interviewing is not to get answers to questions... At the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the lived experiences of other people and the meaning they make of that experience.... At the heart of interviewing research is an interest in other individuals' stories because they are of worth" (Seidman, 2013, p. 9).

There are moments- especially with everything that is going on - that I wonder why am I here again? Is it even worthwhile while the world falls apart around me? But this reminds me that I do want to play a role in uplifting the stories of newcomer/Indigenous students.

The picture I posted was one I took yesterday when Eastside high school students walked out. I chose to walk out with them and volunteer as an adult ally/peacekeeper. The youth are also uplifting their voices for their immigrant friends/families. I guess I'll keep going for them.

# data[].attributes.body
Two Favorite Approaches

1. Ask Participants to Speak as if Talking to Someone Else

Role-playing questions can help shift perspective and encourage authentic responses.

Example: “If I were your best friend, what would you say to me about this?” (p. 97).

2. Ask Participants to Tell a Story

Some participants struggle with abstract discussion but open up when asked for a specific story.

Example: A student teacher’s experience with a “dirty joke incident” revealed deep insights about boundaries in teaching (p. 98).

# data[].attributes.body
I felt this chapter provided great tips and insights into the interview practice. I am leaning more into having a focus group with newcomer students and I was drawn to the sections on language practices. Since I will hopefully be interviewing newcomer HS students who speak Indigenous languages, I am curious about 'generating a wealth of vernacular speech in vivo'" and hoping to witness both the "group effect" and the "therapeutic effect." I especially liked the idea of how group interviews have a "cascading" effect and sometimes the group themselves begin linking common topics/themes. It will be fun to see that come into play while also making note of facial expressions, voice intonations, and body language.

# data[].attributes.headline
Phases of IPR  - (Be) Aligned, (Be) Curious, (Be) Relatable, & (Be) Receptive 

# data[].attributes.subject
Phases of IPR  - (Be) Aligned, (Be) Curious, (Be) Relatable, & (Be) Receptive 

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers must confirm that each interview question directly contributes to answering the broader research questions.

The interview should feel like a natural conversation while still yielding rigorous data.

Questions should avoid academic jargon, be phrased in everyday language, and follow logical social interactions.

Receiving Feedback on the Interview Protocol

Researchers should conduct trial interviews with individuals similar to the target population.

# data[].attributes.body
Roberts (2020) emphasizes that well-crafted interview questions are essential for high-quality qualitative research. The balance between structure and flexibility ensures both rigor and depth, making the research process ethical, reliable, and effective. Is there a certain number of projects one has to do before they learn to master that balance? When do you move from novice to expert?

# data[].attributes.headline
"Listen More, Talk Less, & Ask Real Questions"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Listen More, Talk Less, & Ask Real Questions"

# data[].attributes.body
Seidman's heading, ""Listen More, Talk Less, & Ask Real Questions," reminded me of this snippet of Hamilton:

Burr: While we're talking, let me offer you some free advice: Talk less."

Hamilton: What?

Burr: Smile more.

Hamilton: Ha!

Burr: Don't let them know what you're against or what you're for.

Hamilton: You can't be serious!

Burr: You wanna get ahead?

Hamilton: Yes.

Burr: [Interviewers] who run their mouths off wind up [alienating participants].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aaron Burr Part 2 Talk Less, Smile More (Hamilton The Musical) Leslie Odom Jr. Lin-Manuel Miranda

# data[].attributes.body
Seidman's chapter connects well with the Chew-Graham, et al. article in their discussion of how interviewers influence responses through relatability. In the former, Seidman writes, "During one interview with an intern teacher, I became increasingly uncomfortable. I could not figure out what was bothering me until I realized the the participant was talking positively about his teaching experience in a very formal way, but with very little energy. His nonverbal language was contradicting his verbal language. I began to think he was really very unhappy with his teaching, even though he was talking relatively positively about it." Seidman goes on to explain that the participant opened up more honestly when pressed about the contradicting words and behavior. Noticing those nuances and connecting on a personal and professional level may help to facilitate more fruitful interviews.

# data[].attributes.body
"Maxwell (2013) pointed out the functional difference between research questions and interview questions: 'Your research questions formulate what you want to understand; your interview questions are what you ask people to gain that understanding.' [...]

"Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) stated, 'The researcher questions are usually formulated in theoretical language, whereas the interview questions should be expressed in the everyday language of the interviewees."

This is a helpful differentiation between research questions and interview questions: academic and vernacular vocabulary, respectively.

# data[].attributes.body
Shedding light on whether to study doctors versus patients is a close parallel to studying patients versus teachers (or administrators). Of course, it depends on the line of inquiry, but there is a general leaning towards the receiving end (students & patients) and less on the administering end (teachers & doctors).

Looking back to a video by Jean Lave speaking about how learning and teaching are inherently linked, it could be ideal to look at both groups whenever possible in order to get the most complete picture.

https://gsi.berkeley.edu/programs-services/hsl-project/hsl-speakers/lave/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jean Lave, Learning as a Socially Situated Activity | GSI Teaching & Resource Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On This Page
Profile
Jean Lave’s Web Page (off site)
Video of the Presentation
Summary of the Presentation

# data[].attributes.body
"Within the scientific qualitative researchers are considered naturalists because of their view that reality is ever changing and subjective and their belief that knowledge should be obtained indirectly through the perceptions of and as interpreted by others.”

I like this idea of researchers as naturalists; however, my experience with naturalists is that of outdoor nature guides. The naturalist job where I used to work was that of both expert and guide; a person who used their knowledge and observations to acquaint the city laymen with a natural world that has become foreign. I think this version of naturalists can also apply metaphorically to qual research in the way that they observe and connect.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the researcher could have better clarified his role/purpose as a researcher with the participants he knew. When given short answers that alluded to him being the expert, perhaps he could have considered asking the participant to role play and pretend he is not such an expert.

I use this strategy with my students with disabilities when they assume I know everything about their diagnosis. This has often led them to open up more about their personal experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
Exploring laughter reminds me of when a therapist pick up on a client laughing when they’re uncomfortable or using humor to describe their experiences. Exploring laughter in a qualitative interview could be way to gain deeper insight into a participant’s narrative.

# data[].attributes.body
Introductory questions: Begin the interview with easy questions that ask for narrative descriptions.

Transition questions: Move the interview toward the key questions in a conversational tone

Key questions: Solicit the most valuable information and related to the RQ/purpose of study

Closing questions: Easy to answer and provides opportunity for closure

# data[].attributes.body
Adopt a qualitative attitude: Listen to their stories so you can acquire an understanding of how their experiences unfolded and meanings they associate with these experiences.

Focus on the why an event/experience occurred, how it unfolded, what it was like for them, and what it meant to them

# data[].attributes.body
Tracy (2020) mentions that signs a person may be lying in an interview include answering a factual question with persuasion, engaging in a counterattack, or revealing nonverbal behavior (sweating). Although this may be true, this also seems to mimic the behavior of a nervous or cautious participant

# data[].attributes.body
In many ways, Tracy's description of how an interviewer should interact and behave during interviews reminded me of working at a resort. No matter what role - housekeeping, reception, leisure activity leaders, F & B - staff are encouraged to be pleasant and welcoming to all, as well as gentle with redirection. Two phrases from various staff trainings come to mind in particular: "live with the heart of an innkeeper" and positive commands. The former refers to that welcoming and warm engagement with attention and care towards others. The latter is always phrasing things positively (i.e. "please walk" instead of "don't run").

# data[].attributes.body
Asking interview questions that are unable to provide anything of value toward answering the research question could not only leave the researcher with a lot of unusable data, but also be considered a waste of the research participant’s time and energy.

This is a great reminder for me. As a conversation takes off and feels natural, I would totally forget the purpose of the interview or have other ideas peak my interest from the conversation with the interviewee.

# data[].attributes.body
You can preserve the conversational and inquiry goals of the research act by including four types of questions: (1) introductory questions, (2) transition questions, (3) key questions, and (4) closing questions (Creswell, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Are introductory questions still pertinent when you know the participant/interviewee?

# data[].attributes.body
A more effective and less invasive method to let your participants know you are listening is to refer later in an interview to something participants said earlier.

I certainly agree with this method over interrupting or inserting my own ideas or experiences into the interview.

# data[].attributes.body
The power relationships between doctor and patient are not the same as those of doctor–researcher and doctor–doctor.

This will certainly be of interest for those of us looking to do research in our “own backyard”. Paying attention to the power relationships and dynamics in consideration of the interviewer, interviewee, and the setting of the interview especially if it occurs on-site of the workplace.

# data[].attributes.body
Ask questions that follow what the interviewee is saying. Ask for clarification. Ask to dig deeper. Explore but don’t probe (yet much of the other literature we have been assigned advises to probe!) So, what is the difference between exploring and probing?

# data[].attributes.body
Research Questions formulate what you want to understand; Interview Questions are what you ask of interviewees to gain that understanding. (Nicely articulated!)

# data[].attributes.body
A good interview question does two things: contribute to knowledge production and promote healthy interaction.

But, how can questions be structured in a way that is easy to understand when English is not the interviewees primary language?

# data[].attributes.body
Technology can facilitate interviews, especially when geography is an issue.

o   Most facilitate voice-recording (a very old, but tried and true technology). It is hard to imagine a time when we did not even have voice recorders!

o   When non-video modalities are used, many nuances are lost. You also cannot tell if the interviewee is being distracted by another activity.

o   Multi-modal technology that incorporates video can add lots of richness to interviews, but it might also add complexity to the coding process.

o   Confidentiality can be compromised

# data[].attributes.body
Be aware that the researcher can wear multiple hats. Depending on the hat worn, the interviewee will respond differently. This, then, is critical to collecting and analyzing the qualitative data. How would a White researcher mitigate the historic power paradigm?

# data[].attributes.headline
Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol Refinement Framework

# data[].attributes.subject
Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol Refinement Framework

# data[].attributes.body
One of the key takeaways from the article is the importance of balancing structure with flexibility. Castillo-Montoya emphasizes that while an interview guide provides direction, researchers must remain attuned to the participant’s responses and be willing to adapt their questioning in the moment. This raises an important ethical and methodological question—how much should an interviewer intervene or probe deeper without influencing or shaping the participant’s response?

Additionally, the article highlights the role of researcher reflexivity, acknowledging that interviewers bring their own biases, assumptions, and preconceptions into the research process. This is particularly significant when interviewing people of color, historically underserved populations, or individuals with disabilities, as poorly designed interview protocols may unintentionally reinforce systemic biases or fail to capture the full depth of marginalized experiences. The IPR Framework’s think-aloud exercises and pilot interviews offer essential strategies to mitigate bias and ensure that interview questions are culturally responsive and inclusive.

How can qualitative researchers design interview questions that encourage deep, meaningful responses while avoiding the risk of leading participants toward specific answers?derresponsibility to truly capture the voices of participants.

# data[].attributes.headline
Technique Isn't Everything, But It Is a  lot"

# data[].attributes.subject
Technique Isn't Everything, But It Is a  lot"

# data[].attributes.body
One of the most compelling aspects of this chapter is Seidman’s discussion on active listening and silence. He highlights that interviewers often feel uncomfortable with pauses and silences, yet these moments can be powerful opportunities for participants to process their thoughts and expand on their responses. This raises an important question about how much control an interviewer should exert over the conversation - should they always guide it, or is stepping back and allowing the participant to lead more effective?

Additionally, Seidman cautions against leading questions and overly structured interviews that can restrict participant expression. While structure provides consistency and reliability, too much rigidity can result in superficial responses rather than deep, personal insights. This is particularly relevant when interviewing people of color, historically underserved populations, or individuals with disabilities, as a highly structured approach may fail to capture the complexity of their lived experiences or may reinforce existing power imbalances. Interviewers must balance technique with empathy, adaptability, and cultural awareness to ensure that participants feel safe and respected in sharing their narratives.

Seidman argues that interviewers must balance structure with flexibility in qualitative research. How can researchers ensure they are guiding the conversation effectively without imposing their own biases or limiting participant responses?

# data[].attributes.headline
Qualitative Research and the Problem of Judgement

# data[].attributes.subject
Qualitative Research and the Problem of Judgement

# data[].attributes.body
This study challenges the assumption that shared identity between researcher and participant automatically leads to richer data. Instead, it reveals that shared identity can either foster trust or reinforce hierarchy, depending on the context. This is particularly relevant for research involving historically marginalized communities, people of color, and special education populations, where power dynamics between interviewer and interviewee can shape narratives. How can researchers balance shared understanding with critical distance to ensure that interviews remain authentic yet analytically rigorous?

Furthermore, the study underscores the ethical concerns of qualitative research - especially in terms of self-censorship, moral judgment, and data validity. If participants feel they are being evaluated rather than understood, their responses might be filtered or strategically framed, which raises questions about the reliability of interview data. This has profound implications for research in medical and educational settings, where professionals may be hesitant to reveal their true opinions on controversial or sensitive issues.

It made me wonder, how can qualitative researchers ensure that peer interviews produce authentic and unbiased data, without falling into the trap of "shared conceptual blindness"?

# data[].attributes.body
This study aimed to illustrate the benefits and problems attending the dual role of clinician/qualitative researcher and described that clinical skills are not necessarily transferable.

I find this article particularly close to home as I have navigated my skills and experiences as a clinical therapist.

At the same time, my intended method for data collection; the semi-structured interview, is intended to elicit the meanings attributed by the subject to a particular research question.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is interviewing so much more than asking questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is interviewing so much more than asking questions

# data[].attributes.body
The researcher/interviewer must be:

Knowledgeable about the topic and the interview- especially if there is public knowledge available about the participant;

Purposeful and clear – moving through the interview so that it accomplishes both researcher and participant goals in a timely manner;

Gentle and forgiving- allowing interviewees to pace and respond the way they desire and providing smooth transitions between topics;

Sensitive- paying attention to the emotional tone in addition to the message and noticing what is both said and not said;

Open-minded and not quick to judge (verbal or nonverbally);

Attentive and critically curious – listening, following up on past answers, and asking questions about inconsistencies.

Interpretive -clarifying and extending the interviewee's answer (“When you say X, do you mean Y?”)

# data[].attributes.headline
Ensuring Interview Questions align with Research Questions... with depth and meaning.

# data[].attributes.subject
Ensuring Interview Questions align with Research Questions... with depth and meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
Alignment between interview questions and research questions increases utility of interview questions (confirms their purpose), while ensuring their necessity (eliminating unnecessary ones). The purpose of in-depth interviewing is not to get answers to questions; it is to understand the lived experiences of others and the meaning they make of that experience (Seidman, 2013, pp. 9).

People's lives have worth. People's lives are complex. Questions should help participants tell their stories one layer at a time but also align with the purpose of the study.

# data[].attributes.body
Interview questions should be carefully worded in a way that is easy to understand and framed to allow the research participant to share freely (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

o   Broad as not to limit or bias the research participant's response. Questions can be direct, indirect, or even hypothetical. Questions must capture a detailed account of the participant's perception of their experience that the researcher can use to answer the research questions.

o   Questions that explore what is unknown rather than leading the course of the interview through the tone or structure of the questions that are posed (Kvale, 1996; Patton, 1989; Richardson, Dohrenwend, & Klein, 1965; Seidman, 2013).

o   Questions should be free of assumptions, allow for complex answers, and convey that the researcher is open to all aspects of the experience, both positive and negative.

o   The interview should be structured to focus on the topic of interest but not framed to limit the focus to one portion of the experience.

o   Questions must be worded in a way that allows the research participant to identify what they feel is important and focus on their personal experience instead of asking them to interpret the thoughts, feelings, experiences, and perspectives of others (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

# data[].attributes.body
Seidman (2013) describes that Interview Questions are not designed to test hypotheses or corroborate opinions. Rather, to reconstruct their experience and explore meaning.

In particular, I appreciate how Seidman described types of listening to include thoughtfulness in grappling with a particular experience, not the struggle, and "things that fascinate."

There were quite a few sensitivities that arose, including "absorption," silence and transference. Seidman warned about not becoming too engrossed and finding a zone across interviews.

The literature reminds the researcher the importance of balance in interviewing through concentrated listening, engaged interests and purpose in moving forward.