Most of us have room for improvement when it comes to listening, and in a biographical interview, it’s a crucial skill to sharpen and wield. In this article, we’ll take a look at waiting and acknowledging and how silence is far from being the enemy.
In research interviews, the interviewer’s ability to listen effectively, along with their response plays a key part in influencing what is said — and equally as important, what isn’t said.
Biographer Carl Rollyson said “I like the feeling of working against my subject, of trying to find out things that he or she has tried to bury or to obfuscate. I have learned to be wary of my subjects. I find them enormously entertaining. I learn a great deal from them. But I don’t trust them. Not because they’re all liars, but because they want to have it their way.”
Narrative interviews are characterised by their subjectivity: Jessee notes that during biographical interviews, it’s important to remember that what is said in the interview “will encapsulate a blend of fact and fiction that is unique to the narrator and the time the interview was conducted”. What your interviewee says about particular events is not necessarily the same as what they would say about the same event in ten years time.
Ritchie says to remember to not just listen to what they say, but listen to how they speak, such as pitch, any hesitations, what they emphasise, how fast they talk, if they raise their voice, mutter or use sarcasm.
Below, I’ll discuss how to acknowledge responses and the value of silences.
Acknowledging
Biographers can take a number of approaches to the research interview, such as interviewing with a chronological, thematic, emotive or narrative approach. When opting for the narrative approach, interviewers take a back seat during the first interview, allowing and encouraging the interviewee to decide which stories to tell, how long to talk about these stories and what to tell about that story.
Interviewers in a narrative interview strive to minimise interruptions and questions, but this doesn’t erode the need to acknowledge the interviewee’s words. Failure to acknowledge the interviewee’s response can come across as dismissive and uninterested — Harding says it suggests that the interviewer perceives the response as unimportant and insignificant. Talmage notes that showing a genuine interest in the person’s story and a willingness to listen can build trust with the interviewee.
At times, the interviewer may be so fixated on their own agenda that new, emerging topics of discussion might be dismissed — rather than exploring a new avenue of discussion raised by the interviewee, the interviewer might miss this opportunity and move on to the next question. In doing so, Harding points out that interviewers are not only disregarding what the interviewee deems to be important, but the interviewer also misses out on exploring topics that may prove to be valuable. Talmage suggests that we really listen: don’t focus on finding a moment to interrupt and don’t overly focus on searching for themes.
It’s important to note that changing the subject may, unintentionally or intentionally be used as a coping mechanism. In one instance, when interviewing parents of children with terminal illness, Lillrank’s interviewee hinted at her “suppressed emotions” and the author said “I was not ready to take it” – the author changed the subject, resulting in the interviewee being offended and giving short answers after this point.
Conversely, acknowledging the interviewee’s response can demonstrate sincerity and understanding and aid in encouraging further discussion, for example, Talmage was interviewing an African American about housing, who said “You don’t have any idea what it’s like to be black” and the interviewer acknowledged this and said “of course I don’t have any idea of what it means to be black, but if you can tell me about your experience as a black man, I can have a better idea. So can you tell me what it’s like to be a black man who is looking for housing, and how it seems different from being a white man?”
Demonstrating an appropriate level of sympathy, respect and interest is important and Lillrank notes that failure to show sympathy can inhibit discussion as it may come across as cold. At times, Talmage suggests it may be appropriate for the interviewer to share a personal experience from their own life, to display empathy and potentially assist the interviewee in expressing their own story with greater clarity.
Acknowledging the interviewee’s responses shows that they have been understood. Rosenthal and Lillranks suggest considering making appropriate eye contact, nods and gestures of attention and using response tokens such as “uh huh”, “oh”, “yeah”, “yes”, “mmm” and “okay”. Rosenthal states that using these paralinguistic expressions along with appropriate physical responses, interviewers can display interest and attentiveness without interrupting the flow of discussion. Rosenthal suggests a simple prompt such as “and then what happened?” may also be enough to keep them talking, or Thompson suggests that to get them back on track, use phrases such as “earlier you were saying” or “going back to” or “before we move onto”.
Ritchie, however, suggests using body language to communicate that you are listening, such as smiles and nods, and cites Field’s claim that the interviewer’s response tokens will “clutter the recording”.
In her research of workplace grievances, Elizabeth Hoffman was mindful that her emotions could adversely impact the interview or influence the interviewee’s response. She sought to balance her own emotions and the need to respond appropriately with her interviewees, she said, “at first, I did not even allow myself to nod but, at most, tried to strongly ‘blink with compassion’”.
Waiting
People have a natural tendency to avoid silences: #awkward #panic #runaway #gonein60seconds
Silences tend to make people feel awkward and nervous, but in the words of Robert Miller, let’s just make one thing clear:
Do not fear pauses.
Ascough, Curthoys and McGrath all say that silence is your friend: be comfortable with silence.
Know when it’s your turn to be quiet – there’s no need to fill silences, silences are part of the process. Talmage and Ritchie stress that: the interviewee might be considering their thoughts before responding or they may be evaluating what has happened in the interview so far.
Let your interviewee have time to think. Author and historian Studs Terkel said, “don’t push them, don’t rush them, don’t chase them or harass them with getting on to the next question. Take your time … let’s put it the right way: let them take their time”.
Talmage notes that when they are at a loss of what to say, if they aren’t pushed, they might find a way to verbalise their thoughts. Give them time to remember — Thomsen & Brinkmann remind us that remembering a specific memory is a “cognitively demanding task”.
Silence can help the interviewee know how much to say, Ritchie notes that “silence indicates that an interviewer expects more. Ten seconds can seem excruciatingly long” but it’s important to give the interviewee time to answer, and by remaining silent, interviewees can know that they are expected to say more. Thomsen & Brinkmann state that if they seem to want to say more, and they don’t, consider reminding the interviewee to include all details they remember because social conventions are that brevity is important.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that the words spoken are the only important part of the interview: silence also reveals. Talmage notes that “the astute interviewer will listen both to what the respondent is saying and to what is not being said. There may be reasons for the silence… It is the task of the interviewer to listen to the silence in the context of the interview and determine appropriate responses, if any”.
In interviewing individuals who have experienced trauma, Alexievich said “I listen when they speak… I listen when they are silent… Both words and silence are the text for me”. Consider why the silences exist: did the person forget or will they become distressed or embarrassed if you continue? Freund (cited by Jessee) reminds us to consider asking why they want to avoid the topic instead of making assumptions about their reasons.
If you cut them off from their story they might get confused or bring it up later, thus Donald Ritchie said “it is usually worth giving them the time to tell their set speeches”.
Next let’s look at note-taking in a biographical interview.
0 Comments