Interviews are precious: in most cases, both parties make significant sacrifices to be there, and the decision to be interviewed may have been a difficult one. There is a lot at stake during biographical interviews — it’s one thing to make a mistake when researching in the archives, and another thing altogether when it comes to mistakes during interviews.
Although mistakes are unavoidable, there’s a lot you can do to ensure your interviews run as smoothly as possible. In this article, we cover logistics, the pre-interview discussion, as well as what to do immediately before the actual interview.
Part 1: Before the pre-interview
What is a pre-interview? In biographical research, a pre-interview is a meeting that should take place before the actual, first interview. The purpose of the pre-interview is to introduce yourself (if you haven’t already), establish rapport, and decide guidelines and boundaries. It’s also a useful time to finalise logistics for the actual interview. Pre-interviews can take place over the phone or via video call, however, when possible, meeting in person is ideal.
Before the pre-interview, take time to consider a few key factors.
Language
Decide which language/s will be used during the interview. The Oral History Association recommends that interviewees should be encouraged to answer in their own language. It’s important to note that if English is a second language and the interview is conducted in English, the interviewee has less power, which can influence their ability to convey their experiences, as well as their mental stamina and their willingness to be forthcoming. Madge (cited in James and Busher) notes that conducting interviews in English has “been viewed as a form of linguistic colonialism that limits the power of people who do not speak English as a first language to express their views”.
If English is your first language, but your interviewee’s is not, consider encouraging them to answer in their first language and organise an interpreter for the pre-interview and each subsequent interview. Oral historian, Donald Ritchie, reminds us to adjust our time accordingly, given that the presence of an interpreter will lead to longer interviews, since you need to wait for questions and answers to be translated before responding.
Location
It’s essential that you get the location right, not just for logistical reasons, but also due to its impact on power. In terms of logistics, when possible, choose a quiet place where the person won’t be interrupted, a location where there are minimal distractions, such as phones, colleagues, family members, pets and even appliances.
Logistics
In the SAGE Handbook of Interview Research, Talmage notes that we should consider practicalities, such as seating arrangements, access to beverages, restrooms and power outlets, whether or not there is adequate and suitable lighting, and if the interviewee will be comfortable in this venue.
On a macro scale, if your interviewees are located interstate or internationally, consider not only the travel time and cost, but visas, local consent and any specialised training that might be required, all of which are discussed further below.
Power dynamics
In addition to logistics, the location of the interview can influence the power dynamics of the interview. By choosing the venue yourself, you have control over sound and have the ability to test and set up recording devices. Talmage notes that formal settings may help with formal listening but interviewees may find such locations threatening.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Hoffman notes that allowing the interviewee to choose the location gives them power, which may assist them in being more comfortable and forthcoming. In researching racist and anti-Semitic groups, Kathleen Blee allowed interviewees to choose the interview location, and settings included the participant’s home, prison, public places such as restaurants, hotel lobbies, public library and even in the home of prominent racist leader.
Some of Blee’s interviewees disclosed that there would be many weapons nearby or that their comrades may drop by their house, and when meeting in a public place, some mentioned there would be armed comrades positioned nearby. These details may have been mentioned for the purpose of transparency, but could have also been mentioned to elicit fear and establish a position of power, however, it was important for Blee that her interviewees felt comfortable. Blee only refused the requested location twice: once was when she was told she would need to be blindfolded and transported in the back of a truck, and another was when she would be driven by a racist group member to a “very remote racist compound”.
Time
When we consider time, there are a few aspects of time to consider.
Proximity to events
If specific events are of interest, keep in mind that people remember more details and with greater clarity closer to the event, but if they are interviewed after time has passed, Ritchie notes that they have time to reflect on the events and they are better placed to “weigh the events and sort the significant from the trivial”.
Another key consideration is that over time, personal accounts are influenced by secondary evidence, such as the media, as well storytelling. When a story is told repeatedly, these versions become reinforced:
Each telling of the story embeds it firmer in the mind… every telling of a story embellishes it… events are telescoped, chronology tightened, order rearranged and edited, drama or humor heightened. Rehearsed stories tend to omit negative events and concentrate on triumphs.
— Donald Ritchie
Garrett Graff published an oral history of September 11, The Only Plane in the Sky. With an understanding that memories change and fade over time, Garrett Graff noted that many institutions began interviewing witnesses of September 11 as soon as possible.
Conversely, Nobel Laureate and oral historian Svetlana Alexievich wrote Last Witnesses and The Unwomanly Face of War based on interviews with elderly individuals who recounted their experiences from many decades earlier. In many cases, it can be difficult for interviewees to remember details and experiences, which is discussed in further detail in “Interviewing for biography: during the interview”.
Number of interviews
The number of interviews will depend on the individual’s importance in your subject’s life, as well as logistics, such as distance and the interviewee’s availability and willingness to be involved. Ritchie and Jessee note that interviewees tend to become more comfortable and forthcoming over time. Jessee conducted two to six formal interviews with each person, and Ritchie said that on one occasion, it took three interviews before the interviewee lowered their guard and at the fourth meeting, the interviewee said “Up till now I’ve been giving it to you sugar-coated”.
It can take a while to get to the truth, and given biographies are significantly detailed, it may be likely that a large number of interviews with your subject are necessary, such as Isaacson’s 40 interviews with Jobs over a period of two years. In writing a biography about playwright Tom Stoppard, Anna Leszkiewicz notes that Hermoine Lee conducted interviews with Stoppard over a period of six years and Stokes notes that Lee conducted over a hundred interviews with his associates.
Length of interviews
A key consideration in choosing the length of an interview is the ability of both the interviewer and interviewee to stay focused, as well as the relative importance of the interviewee, the distance travelled, the location and your research agenda.
When conducting academic research, Blee conducted interviews that lasted one to six hours each, and Ritchie recommends that interviews should be a maximum of one and a half to two hours, so that both parties don’t get too tired, however “there is no ideal length for an interview”.
Miller suggests avoiding time constraints, rather, Miller suggests estimating a maximum time and adding to that. The pre-interview is a good forum to judge your interviewee’s stamina. For example, if their attention is waning or they lose momentum towards the end of a 20 minute pre-interview, then a two hour interview may not be a good idea.
Time of day
DeLouise & Harrington cite the importance of considering when your interviewee is most alert; perhaps it’s first thing in the morning, or possibly late at night. Leszkiewicz notes that Hermoine Lee found that when she stayed with Tom Stoppard, she was ready to write in the morning, whilst Stoppard was “more of a theatre time person. So he’d pick up energy in the evening – just as I was beginning to flag”.
Cost
Consider logistical expenses, such as your travel, your interviewee’s travel, accommodation, your time and the cost of any extra equipment. Consider if you will be writing your own transcriptions or if you will be outsourcing this.
Regional and local permission
Take time to research and understand the legal, ethical and cultural climate of the location where you’ll be interviewing and of the person you’ll be interviewing. In “Informed Consent” Chilisa and Ntseane note that in Africa, researchers need to negotiate with community leaders before conducting interviews.
In the USA, Kaiser noted that a number of universities and offices of the Indian Health Service “require documentation of tribal support prior to working with Native American communities”. In her research of genocide in Rwanda, Jessee had to obtain approval from the Rwanda National Ethics Committee, obtain a research permit from the Ministry of Education and a research visa from the Rwanda Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration.
Specialised training
If travelling to areas of conflict, Jessee recommends considering specific training, such as basic first aid, hazardous environment training and trauma counselling.
Equipment
Recording the interview is highly recommended – verbatim records are imperative. In the Oral History Reader, Potelli reminds us (cited by Jessee) that in addition to capturing the discussion, audio and video recordings allow us to review tone, volume range and speech rhythm and analyse what meanings and connotations these may have.
Recording interviews allows the interviewer a degree of freedom to focus on listening and responding appropriately, rather than concentrating on taking notes. When interviewing a prisoner convicted of leading genocide in Rwanda, Jessee was prohibited from making an audio recording. Combined with the mental demand of taking notes and the emotional demands of the difficult subject being discussed, she later found that she had taken insufficient notes, with no follow up notes in her margins for later and no notes about her interviewee’s changes in speech patterns or body language. She said, “Due to the horrific nature of the events Alexandre was describing, I had failed to listen deeply during the interview, which then hindered my ability to revisit his narrative with a critical eye”.
There are also times when recording isn’t appropriate. When researching Jill Craigie’s biography, Carl Rollyson conducted a number of interviews with politician Michael Foote, and during their last interview, Rollyson chose not to turn on his recorder, “Going in I knew how fraught it would be, and I thought the tape recorder would add to the tension.” To ensure he could still take notes, he asked his wife to drive immediately after the interview, so that he could use his tape recorder to describe the meeting.
Although recording devices were out of his reach back in the eighteenth century, James Boswell was known for not taking notes during an interview; Hermoine Lee noted that it is said that Boswell “relied more on a good memory and quick writing-up after the event” and Jack Shafer noted that Truman Capote, author of In Cold Blood, claimed to never use a tape recorder or notes when writing this book, claiming he had 94 or 96 per cent recall, which has been debated vehemently over the years. But – why make it harder than it has to be? Record that interview.
Valerie Janesick recommends a digital voice recorder, extra storage, extra battery or battery charger, and Ritchie recommends using more than one recorder. Ritchie had an experience when nothing could be heard on a tape except static and the interviewee later said “Maybe that’s all I gave you” but fortunately the “interviewee graciously agreed to do another interview, but repeat sessions are rarely as spontaneous and detailed as the original interview”.
Ritchie suggests following the technology that is used for selling music, “the longest-lasting devices are those associated with music sales. When investing in new equipment, therefore, projects should ‘follow the music’. Keep current with the latest equipment”.
For portability, consider one or two stereo handheld recorders, priced from $200 in Australia. Another option is your mobile device, with an external microphone. Ritchie says that if only one microphone is available, give it to the interviewee to use. Consider a lavalier microphone, which can clip onto your interviewee’s shirt or jacket — these cost about $40-$90 in Australia.
Check that you have enough storage on your device, and if using cloud storage, keep in mind that your location and venue may struggle with wireless internet access and/or mobile data coverage. DeLouise & Harrington recommend using a dedicated card reader for better quality and speed.
Lastly, make sure you know how to use your recorder prior to meeting!
Communication method
It’s likely that many of your interviews will be conducted face to face, however, ever-changing technology offers other methods, some of which are particularly useful. Before your interview and pre-interview, decide which communication method is best suited for this particular interviewee, or if you will be taking a blended approach.
Face to face interviews
Meeting face to face is likely to lead to building stronger rapport and consequently the interviewee may be more open and willing to talk. Brinkman and Ritchie state that in-person interviews facilitate social interaction and allow the interviewer to observe and note nonverbal signs and gestures, such as smiling, trembling, shifting in their seat, or drumming their fingers on the table as well as changes in atmosphere and changes in speech such as sarcasm, laughter, crying and quiet muttering.
Communication can be more straightforward in person: it’s easier to clarify questions, ask more sensitive questions, and in-person interviews can possibly lead to more thoughtful and more truthful answers. Meeting in person also enables the interviewer to see firsthand details that can be used to provide rich descriptions of place.
As with any interview, there is always the risk of investing time and resources and having the interviewee pull out, but with face to face interviews, there is more at stake. In The New York Times, Janny Scott wrote that the late biographer Carole Klein flew from New York to London, only to have her source cancel their appointment after she arrived in London – which makes video calls somewhat more appealing.
Video interviews
Video calls through platforms such as Skype and Zoom are easy to record, and offer efficiency, saving time and travel. There are potential issues with lighting, background noise, visual distractions and sound quality. Other significant obstacles are equipment, power supply, internet access and internet stability, with some demographics being more affected than others. Granted, in Australia, we too have internet issues, however interviewees in other countries or regions may experience significant barriers, for example, Njini, Mariano and Flores note that scheduled blackouts, known as brownouts, are common in the Philippines and South Africa.
Phone interviews
Phone interviews might be suitable to verify information and to remove the risk of bias. Without a camera, respondents may feel a sense of anonymity and therefore they may feel more free to speak however James & Busher note that this also enables them to “distort and disguise their views and perspectives and also identities”. When Hermoine Lee was researching Virgina Woolf, she interviewed a number of older people in their 80s and 90s and she said they were easy to talk with, particularly the phone, as they didn’t have “do the whole business of making you a cup of tea”.
Brinkman suggests that phone interviews are generally highly structured, with a tight format, however it is possible to conduct unstructured or narrative interviews over the phone. Without face-to-face contact, establishing rapport might be more challenging.
Online chat
Online chat offers another form of synchronous communication and Brinkman notes this may be useful for people who have physical challenges, such as eating disorders, given that online chat can remove the visual element from discussion. Online chat can also be a useful form for interviewees whose first language is not English, those who may have hearing loss or strong accents.
Instant messaging
It’s possible to clarify or seek information via instant messaging, such as through SMS or apps such as Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. Instant messages are similar to online chat, given that conversations can happen in real time, however with instant messages, communication can also be delayed; it can be asynchronous. Mallory Tenore notes that journalists have found that instant messaging allows for faster communication and an ability to reach members of the public. Biographers may find that instant messaging provides an avenue to reach potential interviewees.
Email interviews
This type of interview is asynchronous, which comes with a number of benefits and challenges. Given they are writing the official record, respondents may feel more assured about the accuracy of their response. It could be said that there is less room for misinterpretation, but this could be argued both ways.
Penenberg, James and Busher suggest that email might be a useful way of verifying information, particularly if detailed or very technical information is required.
Mann and Stewart note that for respondents whose first language isn’t English, email interviews can empower them and prevent embarrassment, as they are able to write their response, in their own time. Tenore, James and Busher note that email interviews may be a useful method of communication if interviewees are in a different time zone or are difficult to get hold of and that it may generate a faster response.
Others argue that email interviews can be lengthy, due to the necessity of waiting for a reply and unfortunately, emails are also easily ignored or deleted. James and Busher note that this style of interview offers respondents more time to consider their reply – which might not always be a good thing.
James and Busher note that it can be difficult to develop rapport and make the most of spontaneity which tends to arise in a synchronous interview such as face to face, phone or video interviews. James and Busher highlight that people might express themselves differently online, Tenore notes they might be more formal when writing an email compared to when they speak and Brinkman states that not everyone can write well or in enough detail. James and Busher note that the lack of visual and nonverbal cues can make it difficult for interviewees to express themselves.
James and Busher suggest that if you do use email, emails should be personalised, to avoid the impression of mass mailing. They stress the importance of identifying yourself, using a subject header that doesn’t misinform, knowing your subject before asking questions and giving information about the interview including your objective and how it will run.
Part 2: The pre-interview discussion
The pre-interview discussion is a critical meeting that interviewers should seek to undertake, whenever possible. During the pre-interview, interviewers can build rapport, establish boundaries and consent and discuss anonymity: all of which are important factors which must be taken care of to allow the real interview to take place and ensure the real interview/s are constructive.
Pre-interviews can take place over the phone, video call or in-person, but take care not to discuss too much before the real, actual interview. Ritchie shares how TV interviewer Brian Lamb said he “‘ruined’ some of his interviews by asking questions before the cameras were turned on, since a question asked the second time rarely elicits a response as fully satisfying as it did the first time.
Ritchie states that where appropriate, ask your interviewee to bring any primary documents they would like to share, and ask for permission to use these resources, items such as papers, letters, scrapbooks, photographs, videos and so on.
Building rapport
Gaining the interviewee’s trust is essential and building rapport will help the interviewee feel comfortable enough to participate fully. Miller notes that during interviews, interviewees are vulnerable — they give much of themselves and if the discussion is likely to be traumatic, they may feel apprehensive about meeting – the pre-interview can help with this.
James and Busher offer some useful tips for building rapport: start building rapport before your first meeting — be a good human and reply punctually to emails and phone calls: show that they matter to you. They also put their interviewees at ease by sending their own photos, so that their interviewees know what they look like prior to meeting.
During the pre-interview, Harding says to “get to know each other, find common ground and establish trust” and Fontana suggests, if appropriate, gain trust by disclosing something about your own private life.
In Jessee’s article, sociologist Kathleen Blee points out that it’s not always possible or desirable to build rapport or have sympathy with an interviewee, for example, if interviewing members of the Ku Klux Klan. In her interviews with racist and anti-Semitic groups, Blee was able to build a level of rapport with interviewees by clearly advising them that she didn’t share their values but that she “would try to present an accurate depiction”.
Keep in mind that our occupational or personal position is another way in which we can build rapport. Johnson & Rowlands differentiate between strict reciprocity and complementary reciprocity. Strict reciprocity is when we can directly relate to the interviewee, for example, if I was an alcoholic, then I could empathise with alcoholics who I interview. Complementary reciprocity refers to being connected in a different way, for example, if I was a nurse who worked with alcoholics for 20 years, then I could relate to alcoholics on some level.
Boundaries and consent
Miller, Ritchie and Marshall suggest that during the pre-interview, decide the objectives and outcomes of the next interview, topics which will be off limits (if any), and answer any concerns or questions they might have.
Jessee and Miller stress that consent must be informed consent: they need to know what they are getting into. This means that a legal guardian might need to be present if interviewing a minor, a person with intellectual disabilities or a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Jessee, James and Busher, Ascough, Curthoys and McGrath, Marshall and Miller all have valuable advice about consent:
- explain how and where interviews will be done
- how you will protect their privacy
- obtain their consent to record conversations
- discuss where interview records will be stored, for how long, who will have access, and what the interview will be used for
- inform them of any potential risks of being involved and how much influence they can have over the transcript, production, editing and publishing of the content.
Kaiser stresses that we must keep in mind that due to the reflexive nature of qualitative research, at the start you might not know what will be discussed during the interview or who the final audience will be.
To gain consent, consider giving a written outline explaining the details discussed above. Miller suggests there isn’t always a need for a formal document but rather, ground rules are needed for the interview and how the information will be used.
Marzano notes that requiring a signature can undermine trust and erode rapport by creating suspicion or even offend others, “In many cultural settings, signing a form is not an innocuous and routine act, for it evokes painful memories of colonial abuse or governmental injustices”. Marzano also highlights that some people might be illiterate, English might not be their first language, or perhaps in their culture they might “normally view a nod of the head as sufficient indication of agreement to participate”.
Obtain your interviewee’s consent to record the interview, and touch on this again at the start of the real interview. Explain the purpose of the recording is to ensure that an accurate record is kept, for example, to ensure any quotes included in the biography are accurate.
At times, interviewees may prefer not to be recorded; you’ll need to decide if they are expressing an explicit request not to be recorded, or if they are expressing hesitation due to anxiety. In the latter case, encouragement may be needed. In interviewing Maria Ivanovna Morozova (Ivanushkina), a Corporal and sniper, for The Unwomanly Face of War, Morozova asked Alexievich to take the recorder away, she said “I need your eyes in order to tell about it, and that will hinder me”, but within minutes, Morozova had forgotten about the recorder and the interview continued.
When interviewing a reluctant participant in his research for To Be a Woman: The Life of Jill Craigie, Rollyson felt that his interviewee “came armed” and she objected to having the tape recorder on. Rollyson explained to her that he wanted an accurate record of the meeting and that Michael, Jill’s husband, “had never expressed the slightest qualm about my tape recordings” and after this, his interviewee relented.
Donald Ritchie stresses that recording devices should never be hidden as it undermines trust and is “unethical and often illegal”. Penenberg informs us that in the USA, it’s illegal in twelve states to record phone and in-person conversations without prior permission, which can result in a jail sentence. Laws and exemptions vary within Australian states, but generally speaking, recording private conversations without consent can also lead to imprisonment, however Bartle notes that consent does not need to be explicit, it can be implied, such as saying “I’m starting the recording now”.
Anonymity
Miller suggests that if anonymity is possible and desirable, consider allowing the interviewee to decide if they want to be anonymous but note that not everyone will want to be anonymous, for example, Marzano notes that publishing a person’s name might be a way of honouring someone who has passed away. The omission of source information can undermine the credibility of your work and reputation thus it is important to balance their need for anonymity and safety with the potential consequences of referring to anonymous sources.
In interviewing members of racist and anti-Semitic groups, Blee gave her assurance to interviewees that interviews would be confidential, not include real names and that she would not ask them about illegal activities, and despite telling them this she had to stop them at times from “revealing more potentially incriminating information.”
Despite assurances, it isn’t always possible to guarantee anonymity. In her research of genocide in Rwanda, Jessee, told interviewees upfront that it may not always be within her power to minimise risk to them. Due to the nature of the small communities, her visits and presence could easily cause local rumours. Some interviewees were located in prison where surveillance was widespread and she visited genocide memorials where her presence was likely viewed as unusual. “Add this to the highly politicised research setting, whereby talking to the wrong people or asking the wrong questions could quickly result in a researcher attracting negative attention from the government”. She told them that she couldn’t guarantee confidentiality and therefore they should “be especially careful of discussing crimes for which they had not already been convicted”.
Part 3: After the pre-interview
Confirm interview details
Send your interviewee confirmation of the final interview details, including location, start and finish time, how many interviews will be conducted over what period of time and a reminder of anything they should bring to the interview (documents, photos etc.).
Review your research
Most of your research should be completed long before the pre-interview, but it’s a good idea to review your research again before the real interview.
Primary and secondary and research are essential prior to any interview. Ritchie states that secondary research helps an interviewer go into an interview prepared, knowing what to ask and how to assist the interviewee with recall. Jessee suggests preparing a list of topics or questions to discuss in advance.
Research also helps you fill the gaps if interviewees have trouble remembering names, places and other details. Ritchie estimates that for every hour spent interviewing, you’ll likely do ten hours of research and that “subsequent interviews will build on the original research and require less preparation time”.
Research builds rapport and balances power — Ritchie states that “interviewees become impatient with interviewers whose questions show they do not know the subject matter”. Review your notes and any transcripts from earlier interviews and be familiar with the industry of the person you are interviewing. Hoffman had a case when an interviewee got up to leave when Hoffman didn’t know what a “dosco” was, but when she explained what it was, the interviewee was satisfied and continued telling his story.
Ritchie says we should know the “major players in the interviewee’s life and its basic chronology, not only to keep the interviews moving but also to put the interviewee’s mind at ease”.
Thorough preparation means the interviewer is better equipped to handle difficult behaviour from interviewees, for example, if the interviewee doesn’t want to be there or is cynical of the accuracy of oral history or interviews. Ritchie gives the example of an interviewer who was told by Former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie that he had given his papers to archives so that historians wouldn’t need to bother him and that “anyone who expected him to remember and comment on events that happened years ago ‘must live in the realm of the ridiculous’”. Thankfully the interviewer was aware of Muskie’s cynicism, and came prepared: knowing that Muskie was fond of his home state of Maine, the interviewer related their questions to Maine and other locations, resulting in a lengthy, constructive interview.
Prepare emotionally
If it’s likely the interview will cover any topics which are significantly emotional, traumatic or confronting, ensure you have a plan for managing your own emotions during and after the interview. Read my article for more information, Interviewing for biography: managing self.
Part 4: Before the interview
On the day of the actual interview, before it begins, take some time to set up and check your equipment so when your interviewee arrives, you’re ready to go.
Set up
DeLouise & Harrington recommend organising the seating: avoid squeaky chairs and ensure you have a clear line of sight between you. Check the lighting, any ambient noise such as air conditioning and organise any beverages, if appropriate.
Ritchie suggests testing your microphone before the interview and plugging into a power source if needed, whether this be a power outlet or portable charger. If you’re placing the microphone on a surface, place it close to the interviewee but keep in mind that a hard surface may record extra noise, or a table might be kicked.
Miller and Ritchie remind us to be sure that you can easily see the recorder during the interview, to check it is still recording. DeLouise & Harrington suggest testing the microphone in the recording position, using real sentences — not phrases such as “testing, one, two, three”. Ideally both interviewer and interviewee should be speaking across the top of the microphone, not into it.
Ritchie suggests that immediately before the interview, before the interviewee is present, record your name, the interviewees name, and the date.
Remove extraneous people
The presence of additional people, such as spouses, friends or handlers can influence the dynamics and success of the interview. Where possible, remove all extra people from the room. When Alexievich interviewed Soviet sniper Morozova, Morozova’s husband was concerned about his wife’s recollection and ability to recall her experiences. He said, “Tell it the way I taught you. Without the tears and women’s trifles” but Alexievich notes that these are details which are important and it was imperative that she heard Morozova’s own account.
When appropriate, gently ask extra attendees if they can wait in an adjacent room, or return later. DeLouise & Harrington suggest giving the handlers a designated place to sit, such as out of your interviewee’s eye line, and if the handler is remaining present, before the interview, clearly state when you will turn to them to ask if they would like to add anything to the discussion.
Keep in mind that at times it may be preferable for handlers or extraneous people to remain present, security guards, for example, or parents of minors.
Right – now, you’re ready to get familiar with what to do during the actual interview, click here to read Opening and closing a biographical interview.
Image: “Embassy of Rwanda” by I99pema. Available at Wikimedia under Creative Commons 4.0.
0 Comments