Research Evaluation and Policy Project, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University
Grit Laudel and Jochen Gläser
With this article, we want to open a discussion about a methodological problem central to many empirical science studies, but which has received far too little attention, namely informed interviewing. We have shown that two positions can be distinguished in the general methodology of ethnographic studies: naïve observation and informed observation. The latter approach is applied in two forms: native observation, i.e. as sociological observation conducted by scientists who previously belonged to the field under study; and sociological observation by sociologists who acquire scientific knowledge that is relevant in the field under study. Our own application of the principle of informed observation must take the latter form. We applied the idea of informed observation to qualitative interviews, which should be conducted in a scientifically well informed manner for three reasons: the epistemic conditions of action must be included in sociological explanations; the research questions must be operationalised; and qualitative interviewing requires a depth that cannot be achieved without being familiar with the interviewee’s world. In our informed interviewing, we encountered three basic tasks: preparing and suggesting a language for communication (an ad hoc - pidgin that is understood by both the interviewer and the scientist), preparing the interview by acquiring scientific knowledge, and negotiating a level of scientific understanding in the introductory sequence of the interview. We make suggestions how to solve these tasks, and discuss limitations of the approach of informed interviewing.