The power dance in the research interview: manifesting power and powerlessness

Aims of the study

The present paper addresses the manifestation of power between the interviewer and the interviewee during the course of research interviews. Our aims are: (a) to demonstrate how the interviewer and interviewee exercise and present power within interactive relationships; and (b) to examine the kinds of strands that are intertwined with the manifestations of power observable between interview participants.

Interviews and participants

We draw on open-ended narrative interviews from two sub-studies aimed at understanding subjects’ professional identities, agency, and careers (Vähäsantanen et al., 2008, 2009). In her study, Katja interviewed sixteen vocational teachers (ten men and six women, aged between 31 and 57, with teaching experience varying from 4 to 30 years); the teachers were teaching in various fields in a single vocational institution. In the study by Jaana, the interviewees were seven women researchers (aged between 36 and 48) from different universities. In both of these sub-studies, participation was voluntary. The interviews were recorded, and Katja also wrote field notes on the interviews.

From the data sets, we selected two interviews in line with the aims of our present study. These interviews were conducted with a vocational teacher (here called Elias), and with a senior researcher (here called Lisa). Table 1 summarizes the details concerning the interviews. We selected these interviews as par excellence examples, since they were informative, and encompassed various perspectives on power within interviews (involving interview settings and individual backgrounds, in particular age, gender, and profession). However, although they stood out to some extent in our interviews, many similar aspects could be found in the other interviews. For example, the positioning of a researcher on the basis of age and gender occurred in other interviews conducted by Katja. We also selected interviews that were quite different from each other, in order to illustrate the differences and complexities related to power as they emerged across interviews.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Details of the interviews.

	Katja interviewing Elias	Jaana interviewing Lisa
The interviewer	Katja: aged 25, woman, doctoral student	Jaana: aged 44, woman, PhD, researcher
The interviewee	Elias: aged 52, man, experienced vocational teacher	Lisa: aged 44, woman, PhD, senior researcher
Previous relationship	Unknown to each other	Jaana had read Lisa’s publications
Place	The meeting room at Elias’ institute	Lisa’s office at the university
Duration	2 hours 5 minutes	1 hour 30 minutes

Analytical tools

We utilized narrative approaches to analyse the manifestations of power, as they appeared both in the course of interviews and across interviews (Lieblich et al., 1998; Riessman, 2008). In the first phase of the analysis, the transcript interviews were analysed holistically from case to case. The purpose was to search for certain themes and patterns related to the aims of the study, and also to identify shifts in the manifestations of power within the interviews. We therefore proceeded via a search for the most illustrative episodes in which power was manifested in our data, seeking also to identify the different factors which seemed to be related to power. In the second phase of the analysis, we compared the differences and similarities between the interviews selected. All in all, the findings and conclusions were reached through abductive (including both inductive and deductive) interpretation (Patton, 2002). Hence, power was examined on a data-driven basis, through analysis of the contents of the interviews. Nevertheless, our theoretical foundation also influenced the way the analysis was conducted. In the following sections, the manifestations of power observable in the interviews with Elias and with Lisa are presented separately, moving from one interview to another. The first episode uses a combination of the transcribed interview and field notes; all the other examples are from the interview transcriptions.

Questioning and instructing the researcher at the start of the interview

Traditionally, it has been suggested that interviewers have power at the beginning of the interview. They set the stage for the interview, ask permission to record, re-explain the purpose of the interview, and give information about confidentiality (Kvale, 2006; Rapley, 2007). This initial period is also a time when the interview participants assess each other and begin to establish a degree of reciprocity (Corbin and Morse, 2003). At the start of Elias’ interview, the atmosphere was not convivial and the interviewer did not control the direction of the conversation. In fact, Elias (the interviewee) exercised power through questioning Katja’s choice of work as a researcher (expressing also disapproval of researchers in general), and instructing her on how to do research. The episode described below illustrates how this power asymmetry was created:

Katja and Elias introduced themselves, and Elias talked about his work. Then Elias, having observed that Katja had already got her Master’s Degree, came out with ‘Why do you need to get a PhD when you are so young, why are you in such a hurry?’ Then he went on to say that researchers live in a world of their own, in their own researchers’ cells, and that they don’t have any grasp of practical work. Katja commented, saying, ‘But here I am now, out in the field.’ But Elias just continued, ‘But researchers have tunnel vision, they’ve got blinkers over their eyes.’ Then Elias asked about her research in more detail. At this stage Katja told him about the recording and introduced her research. Katja also told him that she would interview in total sixteen vocational teachers from his vocational institution. Elias commented, ‘Okay, but a rather larger sample would be better.’ Katja agreed with him. Then Katja explained the confidentiality aspect and introduced the topics to be included in the interview. She then presented the actual ‘opening question’.

In this extract we can see how Elias immediately broke with the traditional interview frame and the role of the interviewee as the respectful informant who questions neither the research work nor the professional identity of the researcher (see also Arendell, 1997; Tanggaard, 2007). Here, it seems that Katja’s young age and her profession were factors that to a large extent denied her respect or power. On the basis of these factors together, Elias positioned her and took power; hence Katja was immediately put at a disadvantage, contrary to the common view that the academic position of researchers gives them a degree of power over the interview situation (Corbin and Morse, 2003).

The example also demonstrates how Katja was a fairly passive actor who briefly tried to justify herself, but without protesting accepted the position she was offered as an ignorant researcher. Similarly, Katja accepted Elias’ advice on her research; although as a researcher she probably had more knowledge of research. This passiveness was mainly connected to the fact that Katja was confused, since she had not anticipated that this kind of episode would occur (cf. Sands and Krumer-Nevo, 2006). However, amid all the criticism and instructions Katja was an active actor, adhering to the position of a researcher and seeking to carry out research duties related to the initial stage of an interview, such as dealing with confidentiality.

The struggle for control in the process of the interview

Negotiation of power and issues discussed: sexualizing the researcher and reacting to this action

During the interview, Elias positioned Katja as a young woman and as a potential date. This is presented in the next extract, as are the changes that occurred in power relations through the active actions of both interview participants. In fact, the extract shows how Katja initially used power, since it begins with a question from Katja inviting Elias to talk about his experiences. In his response Elias took power through not answering a question. He then moved the discussion away from the interview frame through wondering about the possibility of a date. This can be seen as an act of sexualizing the interlocutor, and also as a moment in which heterosexuality emerged. The extract further demonstrates how Katja exercised power through reacting to this, and how she managed to return the conversation to the interview frame.

In the present case, the interplay of age and gender seems to be essential in the processes of positioning the researcher. The motives Elias may have had in making this proposal remain unclear. Perhaps it was testing, or making an innocent comment, or posing a humorous question – or perhaps in some way expressing real thoughts.

Generally, sexualizing, which can take the forms of flirting, sexual innuendo, and remarks on appearance, has been seen as a way in which men try to reassert control when they are interviewed by women (Arendell, 1997; Schwalbe and Wolkomir, 2003). All this can disrupt the interview process. In the present case, however, Katja’s comment returned the discussion to its matter-of-fact course. Elias’ suggestion did indeed surprise Katja; she had not imagined beforehand that something like this could take place in the interview (cf. Sands and Krumer-Nevo, 2006). However, she reacted spontaneously and humorously: ‘So maybe we could go over to the café after this interview.’ In this situation, Elias seemed to be surprised when – as compared to the previous exchanges – Katja commented more actively and less academically. She distanced herself from the researcher role and played with the rules concerning the ‘sexual interactional tone’ determined by Elias. Indeed, Katja was here fairly active and resisted the exercise of power by Elias. We can also see that in a sense Katja made a point – that the immediate context was an interview context, and that personal issues belonged outside the interview – by her response. Interviewers can adopt different strategies in response to forms of sexualizing (Arendell, 1997; Schwalbe and Wolkomir, 2003), but Katja’s answer functioned here as a considered reaction, since it directed Elias to answer the question relevantly. All this demonstrates how the interview includes negotiations concerning control and the issues to be discussed. It also exemplifies how the activities of both participants shape power relations, and the contents of the interview.

The taking and balancing of power by the interviewee at the end of the interview

During the interview, Elias assigned shifting positions to the interviewer, including those of researcher, young woman, and trustworthy listener. Seeing the researcher in a different light could occur within the same stretch of speech. For example, at the end of the interview Katja asked how Elias saw his future. Elias then started to talk about how his future would be lovely if he was married to Katja, and after this he continued directly with talk about his personal affairs and future fears, without any input from Katja.

After Elias’ talk of his future, it was to some extent Elias who proposed the closing of the interview, although it is usually the researcher who takes this role (Kvale, 2006; Rapley, 2007). This occurred in the form of a question to Katja, asking whether she had been able to ask about everything she wanted. Katja, at least, evaluated the question this way, since she then moved to the question (‘Would you like to add anything?’) which many researchers ask at the end of an interview (see extract below). Thus we can think that Elias took on himself the power to close the interview. This was totally acceptable to Katja after over two hours of conversation.

In this extract we can also notice how Elias talked about his initial interpretation of the interviewer, which was connected with Katja’s age and appearance. Although Elias’ initial thoughts seemed derogatory in terms of age and gender, in a sense Elias now gave professional respect to Katja, because she was doing her PhD. In addition to this, Elias no longer described researching as useless. All this showed a contrast with the initial moments of the interview, when he questioned Katja and criticized researchers.

When we become aware of Elias’ initial thoughts concerning the interviewer and his later evaluation of research, we can consider that his initial actions might be a consequence of his confusion, since his stereotypes of researchers (in terms of gender and age) were not realized when he met Katja, who looked like a young student. Elias’ surprise might be also related to his generation; in the past, especially for young people, it was not so common to study for a PhD. In a way these interpretations would make sense, since at the end he wanted to talk about his initial thoughts and perhaps give excuses for his way of talking. Of course, it also might be that at the beginning of the interview he presented his actual opinions, and that he really wanted to take control of the interview situation. In a way Elias’s actual motives do not matter. Rather, the significance is that Elias’ actions at the beginning of the interview created a power asymmetry, and further influenced the interactions in the interview.

Taking power and relinquishing it at the start of the interview

In the initial period of the interview, the atmosphere was convivial and comfortable, including general discussion about the interview topic (Corbin and Morse, 2003). In the initial phase of the interview, the participants also negotiated some practical matters, such as recording the interview (Corbin and Morse, 2003; Rapley, 2007) and the timetable. In connection with the negotiation of the timetable, as the next extract shows, Lisa told Jaana about her children. In this situation, Jaana tried to create a sense of sameness through sharing the mother position. This can be seen as an act of self-disclosure (e.g. Reinharz and Chase, 2003). But instead of sharing more of her personal background, Lisa cut off the discussion by remarking on the timetable and thus directing the conversation strictly to the interview frame, as the start of the extract illustrates:

By switching the topic and separating herself from the mother position, Lisa rejected the interviewer’s attempt to create a sense of sameness, and controlled the direction of the interaction. At the same time, she emphasized that the aim of the interview was to concentrate on the topic of the research rather than to chat generally. In a sense, Lisa had a precise focus and certain presuppositions related to the interview, and the interviewer’s self-disclosure was unnecessary (cf. Reinharz and Chase, 2003).

As we can see in the latter part of the extract, Jaana asked Lisa to take responsibility for the time taken for the interview. Traditionally it is seen as the task of the interviewer to control the conversation (Holstein and Gubrium, 2003; Kvale, 2006). Thus, in a sense, Jaana gave power away here, but then regained the interviewer position, posing the opening question related to her interview agenda. By using an extensive set of questions, Jaana gave power to Lisa to decide where to start her narrative, without setting strong limitations on the telling. In the absence of a clearly-focused question, Lisa avoided the power position, asking Jaana to clarify where she should start her story. We could surmise that Lisa wanted to be sure that the telling was relevant to the research being conducted; after all, having a tight schedule, she did not wish to spend time on unnecessary matters. Overall, the episode above highlights the fact that power positions can shift between the interview parties during the interview process, and that it is not only interviewers who control the time and ask questions.

Collective knowledge production in specific power relations

Negotiating contradictory positions in the interview process

Although collective knowledge production occurred in the interview with Lisa, the interaction was also contradictory at times. It is easy to see that the research interview can be a context in which the contradictory assumptions and discourses of the research topic meet each other, and are challenged or ignored (Tanggaard, 2007). The following example involves negotiation in which one can see the offering of a position and interpretation by the interviewer, plus the interviewee’s refusal to accept this position. At the start of the extract Jaana agrees with Lisa concerning researchers:

One can see that in this episode Jaana offered Lisa the position of an outsider in the department, a person who can lose her office and ‘end up on the street’. In this situation, Jaana distanced herself from the role of questioner, and tried to conceptualize Lisa’s situation from a new perspective. In a sense, Lisa could be seen as an outsider occupying the ‘outer circle’, since she was working on a grant, and had no current appointment with the university. In her response, Lisa exercised power through refusing to accept this position; she highlighted as arguments her long-term working relationship with her department, and her various connections with the department.

Lisa initially disagreed with Jaana’s rather pessimistic perspective on the grant-funded researchers’ situation (Tanggaard, 2007). However, at a later stage of the interview, Lisa admitted to being in some respects a member of the ‘outer circle’, and she talked about her current situation using this term. To put it in another way, through offering a certain position, the interviewer provoked further interview talk; however, this occurred through disagreement and further consideration by the interviewee rather than through passive adaptation. In this case, we would suggest that when a different view was encountered, Lisa started to reflect on and conceptualize her situation from a new perspective. The general point here is that through sharing opinions and interpretations it is possible to view one’s position in a new way and to gain a new understanding of the self (Holstein and Gubrium, 2003; Riessman, 2008).This means that it is not always beneficial for knowledge production that the interview participants have totally similar backgrounds, or views on the topics discussed (Enosh and Ben-Ari, 2010; Tanggaard, 2007).

Although Lisa and Jaana had different views on particular issues, at the end of the interview it became clear that they shared similar presuppositions regarding the interview, when they disclosed motives related to the interview. In particular, they wanted to use the interview to contribute to discussion on women researchers’ experiences of academic life. After this, and after Lisa talked about her future, Jaana closed the interview by asking, ‘Would you like to add anything?’ Lisa agreed that it was time to close the interview.