Trust, nuance, and care: Advantages and challenges of repeat qualitative interviews

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Qualitative Research Pub Date : 2024-04-12 DOI:10.1177/14687941241246159
David Rodriguez Goyes, Sveinung Sandberg
{"title":"Trust, nuance, and care: Advantages and challenges of repeat qualitative interviews","authors":"David Rodriguez Goyes, Sveinung Sandberg","doi":"10.1177/14687941241246159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most methodological discussions about the pros and cons of repeat interviews fall within qualitative longitudinal literature and are premised on project designs with relatively long intervals between encounters. Less attention has been paid to the practice and ethics of repeat interviewing as a stand-alone method, that does not follow participants long-term, but instead conducts several interviews over a short period of time. This article is based on interviews and research logs from a project in which over 350 incarcerated persons in Latin America were interviewed. We evaluate the advantages and shortcomings of repeat interviewing, in this case, three sessions with each participant with up to a week in between sessions. We find that repeat interviewing increases trust and rapport, contributes to nuanced data, generates reflexivity, and ensures more ethical research by making it easier for researchers to care for participants. Yet the method also has the disadvantages of demanding a significant investment of resources, the risk of losing participants, and on occasion, the emotional challenge of breaking strong bonds when researchers and participants part ways. We argue that the advantages of repeat interviews exceed the shortcomings, but ethical concerns added to the cost in time, energy, and money might at times proscribe the method.","PeriodicalId":48265,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941241246159","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most methodological discussions about the pros and cons of repeat interviews fall within qualitative longitudinal literature and are premised on project designs with relatively long intervals between encounters. Less attention has been paid to the practice and ethics of repeat interviewing as a stand-alone method, that does not follow participants long-term, but instead conducts several interviews over a short period of time. This article is based on interviews and research logs from a project in which over 350 incarcerated persons in Latin America were interviewed. We evaluate the advantages and shortcomings of repeat interviewing, in this case, three sessions with each participant with up to a week in between sessions. We find that repeat interviewing increases trust and rapport, contributes to nuanced data, generates reflexivity, and ensures more ethical research by making it easier for researchers to care for participants. Yet the method also has the disadvantages of demanding a significant investment of resources, the risk of losing participants, and on occasion, the emotional challenge of breaking strong bonds when researchers and participants part ways. We argue that the advantages of repeat interviews exceed the shortcomings, but ethical concerns added to the cost in time, energy, and money might at times proscribe the method.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
信任、细微差别和关怀:重复定性访谈的优势与挑战
大多数关于重复访谈利弊的方法论讨论都属于定性纵向文献的范畴,并以两次访谈之间间隔相对较长的项目设计为前提。重复访谈作为一种独立的方法,不对参与者进行长期跟踪,而是在短时间内进行多次访谈,其实践和伦理问题受到的关注较少。本文以一个项目中的访谈和研究日志为基础,在该项目中对拉丁美洲 350 多名被监禁者进行了访谈。我们对重复访谈的优点和缺点进行了评估,在本案例中,我们对每位参与者进行了三次访谈,两次访谈之间最多间隔一周。我们发现,重复访谈能增加信任和融洽关系,有助于获得细致入微的数据,产生反思性,并通过使研究人员更容易照顾参与者来确保研究更符合道德规范。然而,这种方法也有缺点,那就是需要投入大量资源,有可能失去参与者,有时在研究人员与参与者分道扬镳时,还面临着打破牢固纽带的情感挑战。我们认为,重复访谈的优点大于缺点,但在时间、精力和金钱成本之外,伦理方面的顾虑有时也会阻碍这种方法的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on the methodological diversity and multi-disciplinary focus of qualitative research within the social sciences. Research based on qualitative methods, and methodological commentary on such research, have expanded exponentially in the past decades. This is the case across a number of disciplines including sociology, social anthropology, health and nursing, education, cultural studies, human geography, social and discursive psychology, and discourse studies.
期刊最新文献
Creative writing as critical fieldwork methodology Turning the tables or business as usual? COVID-19 as a catalyst in North–South research collaborations Awaiting further consideration ‘You’ll come back another day’ Exploring the challenges of interviewing upper class elites Troubling go-alongs through the lens of care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1