This week I tried interviewing Gretchen over Zoom. Completely forgot to push the “record” button!!!!!!!! So frustrated and upset with myself! Thank God it was just a training interview and I did not need to transcribe it for a real research. Lesson learned.
I have known Gretchen for a few months, and our interview indeed resembled a “friendly conversation” (Roulston, p. 14). What I struggled with was the “ongoing analysis of data” that I was supposed to use to guide the interview in the direction of my interests–the ethnographic exploration of a life with autistic children. As a mother of a child with special needs, I am very interested in how different or similar my life is compared to the other parents’. I am not that naive to think that our experiences are exactly alike, but I still wanted to see if there are some points in common.
So I wanted to learn about Gretchen’s daily life as a mother of two special needs children, and I asked her questions like “what is your typical day like?” and “What places do you frequent with the boys and why?” However, I got sidetracked into creating a sort of a timeline with her: when she became a mother and what were the circumstances. Roulston did mention that “time” is an important piece of ethnographic work; yet, once we started discussing how places she lived and visited made an impact on her journey to the “now,” I became fascinated with her experiences and life choices and before long, my interview became more phenomenological in nature than ethnographic. I think that in a real scenario I would not be so concerned with the genre because I was getting some amazing, rich data, but I still should have stayed more focused on the task at hand. Also, I was very aware of how my interview is getting away from me because I had to mind the fact that I am doing an assignment, and not just simply exploring or even chatting with a peer. Come to think of it, I really WAS chatting with her, but I cannot say I am feeling guilty because, in the end, I learned a great deal about Gretchen, and therefore, reached my ultimate goal.
…I think I would have done better if I actually asked her to tell me about a specific event or two instead of learning about many events that make up her life. Or maybe not… I am not sure.
Pleasant surprise: my interview unexpectedly (or maybe Gretchen did this on purpose, but did not tell me) gained ethnographic value when we started talking about her house. She actually gave me a quick visual tour of her room; therefore, telecommuting worked out even better than speaking face to face. Had it not been for Zoom, I would not have thought to ask her to describe her environment, but it is such an important portion of my interest in the bio-ecology of autistic children! I did not even realize this until now! I also never thought about this particular advantage of Zoom, and I am taking a mental note of Zoom’s usefulness for ethnography, and feeling super lucky because I got a taste of what video-elicitation technique can do.
Lastly, there is one thought that feels uncomfortable, but this is precisely why I must discuss it further: earlier this week, I made a comment in our online exchange that Gretchen should do an autoethnography because she expressed some uncertainty about her current direction in research. I sounded cocky when I said I should “totally interview you,” therefore, implying that my interview would somehow have a therapeutic value, or bring clarity. I was very assuming, and therefore, exceeded my ethical boundaries and even undermined my own agency as a researcher. To mind comes a quote I read in Munby’s article:
“What discussions of trustworthiness, credibility, reliability, validity seem to lack is the sense that research has a purpose. (not the “Statement of Purpose”) …I am interested in what we think research that we do is for: What is the point?” (p.155)
My mistake became clear when I realized how little control I have (or even want to have–she is empowered!) over our conversation.