Interpreting interviews
Interpreting interviews
复制标题
口译采访
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Visram
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Visram
长期以来，访谈一直是定性研究的“面包和黄油”。它们往往被那些从事研究和解释人类经验的人视为生成数据的有效方式。然而，对于“访谈的基本假设是关于知识的表达和从人们那里到研究者的转化”（第3页），也有一些批评。本书的出发点是，访谈并不是“传递意义和经验的管道”（第七页）。阿尔维森提出了三个目标，第一个是批判社会研究中采访的传统观点。他在第二章中做到了这一点，在那里他讨论了对采访的三种主要立场（新实证主义、浪漫主义和地方主义），并提出了这样一个问题：“采访是否揭示了关于某种外部现实或稳定的个人意义/经验的真相，或者它是否更多地反映了采访情境的局部动态和偶然性”（第27页）。这是本书的中心论点，即面试是一个复杂的社会情境，而不是一个简单的工具，用于“挖掘受访者的知识”（第35页）。有时候，看起来阿尔韦森似乎是在反对把访谈作为一种方法来使用，但他实际上是在反对天真地使用访谈的倾向，没有适当考虑到参与者的能动性以及“知道”和“讲述”之间的困难关系。一个好的研究者会保持反思性，并承认自己在共同构建数据中的作用，但Alvesson鼓励读者也思考采访情境和受访者的重要影响。研究参与者有自己的议程和参与印象管理的建议几乎不是原创的。然而，Alvesson提出的解决面试“问题”的方法很有趣。隐喻方法用于解决口译采访的第二个目标，即“建议以理论上更充分知情的方式利用采访”（第6页）。在第四章中，我们列出了一些常见的隐喻--例如，研究者是矿工或旅行者--然后在第五章提供另一种方法之前提出问题。这涉及八个新的隐喻采访，代表了“一个剧目的解释资源抵消常识和工具主义的立场”（第75页）。新手研究者可能很难理解这些隐喻如何在实践中应用，即使在整个章节中使用了一个说明性的例子。不过，本书的目的并不是为采访提供技术指导，而是让读者做好应对复杂性的准备，并鼓励他们保持开放的心态。最终的目标是提出一个研究性访谈的元理论，这在第6章中被描述为一个反身实用主义者，《国际社会研究方法学杂志》第15卷，第6期，2012年11月，545-548页。
Interviews have long been the ‘bread and butter’ of qualitative research. They tend to be seen as an effective way of generating data by those engaged in the study and interpretation of human experience. However, there has been some criticism of the ‘basic assumptions of interviews being about the expression and transformation of knowledge from people out there to the researcher’ (p. 3). The idea that interviews do not ‘function as a pipeline for the transmission of meaning and experience’ (p.vii) is the starting point for this book. Alvesson sets out to address three aims, the first of which is to critique the conventional view of the interview in social research. He achieves this in Chapter 2, where he discusses three major positions taken towards interviewing (neo-positivism, romanticism and localism) and raises the question of ‘Whether the interview reveals the truth about some external reality or stable personal meaning/experience, or whether it reflects more the local dynamics and contingencies of the interview situation’ (p. 27). This is the central argument of the book, that the interview is a complex social situation rather than a simple instrument to be used in ‘Tapping interviewees for knowledge’ (p. 35). At times, it may seem as if Alvesson is arguing against the use of interviews as a method, but he is instead arguing against the tendency to use them naïvely, without due consideration for the agency of the participant and the difficult relationship between ‘knowing’ and ‘telling’. A good researcher remains reflexive and acknowledges her/his own role in co-constructing the data, but Alvesson encourages the reader to also think about the important influence of the interview situation and the interviewee. The suggestion that research participants have their own agendas and engage in impression management is hardly original. However, Alvesson’s proposed solution to the interview ‘problem’ is interesting. A metaphor approach is used to address the second aim of Interpreting Interviews, which is to ‘suggest utilizing interviews in ways that are more theoretically well-informed’ (p. 6). In Chapter 4, some common metaphors are set out – for example, the researcher as a miner or traveller – and then problematised before an alternative approach is offered in Chapter 5. This involves eight new metaphors for interviews that represent ‘a repertoire of interpretive resources counteracting commonsensical and instrumentalist positions’ (p. 75). Novice researchers may struggle to understand how these metaphors can be applied in practice, even though an illustrative example is used throughout the chapter. Then again, the purpose of this book is not to provide a technical guide to conducting interviews, but rather to prepare the reader to deal with complexity and encourage them to remain open-minded. The final aim is to propose a meta-theory of the research interview and this is described in Chapter 6 as a reflexive pragmatist International Journal of Social Research Methodology Vol. 15, No. 6, November 2012, 545–548