Interviews as Reflective Practice

Abstract

I have been working with researchers in education and applied linguistics for over 20 years and I would say that interviews are the most frequently used method in qualitative research. This is a view endorsed by others. Dörnyei, for example, sees the reason for the frequency being that interviews are the most ‘natural and socially acceptable way of collecting information’ (2007: 134). The common use of qualitative interviews is also undoubtedly due to their potential to provide in-depth information related to ‘participants’ experiences and viewpoints of a particular topic’ (Turner 2010: 754). In addition, interviews are widely held to be a fundamentally useful way to understand informants’ beliefs, experiences, and worlds. As Kvale (2008: 9) tells us, they provide ‘a unique access to the lived world of the subjects, who in their own words describe their activities, experiences and opinions.’ However, the fact that qualitative interviews are common can lead to a ‘taken-for-grantedness’ and a lack of critical attention to their use and management. As Kvale and Brinkman say, it ‘seems so simple to interview, but it is hard to do well’ (2009: 1). There are many aspects of qualitative interviews that might be taken for granted. This is one of the reasons why ongoing commitment to reflection is important. Any professional activity can be better understood through attempts to reflect on practice and this is no different in the case of qualitative interviewing.