How to Report Interviews? Substantiating Claims with Interview Data

• In Event: Qualitative Field Research, Research Quality & Research Transparency

Abstract

How can we show the reader that we are not cherry-picking the few quotes from the many interviews that we conducted that support our argument? This is a question that haunts many researchers using interview data. In the end, we commonly collect large amounts of data and only very few pieces of evidence make it to the paper. This triage does offer scholars the opportunity to pick the ripest fruit from those available in our long transcripts/recordings/notes. This paper deals with the critical aspect of how to report interview data in a way that makes it clear to the reader how we assess the evidentiary value of the data and how we arrive from the specific pieces of evidence to the claims that we make. We explore and discuss different ways in which researchers can report data coming from interviews that help enhance the information available so readers can make assessments of the validity/reliability of claims made one basis of those data. Our central intuition is that not all pieces of evidence coming from interviews have the same evidentiary value and, therefore, that we should report enough information for readers to assess this value. We contend that readers will have an easier time judging the value of the quotes/fragments that we report if we provide information about (a) the larger context in which the data were collected/produced; and (b) the reasoning or logic followed to consider a given interview datum as supporting evidence for a particular claim.

Some of the information that we discuss as particularly important to be reported if we are to improve both the production and analytical transparency of our research includes: the position of the informant in relation to the subject of study and/or within the sample of interviewees; the extent to which a diverse set of informants converge on an specific claim; the expected likelihood of finding a specific piece of evidence based on theoretical priors and/or empirical considerations; the degree of uncertainty/indeterminacy about our claims based on evidence that we did not find or that we found but did not easily fit our claims; and the extent to which interview data not only supports our claims but also undercuts alternative claims.

Taking into account the aspects discussed in this paper should not only help readers judge the value of the evidence reported, but also offer researchers with some general guidelines on how to report (and analyze) interview data in our writings, beyond the standard practice of citing specific quotes or fragments as illustrations. While some of the aspects that we discuss here might speak more directly to positivist research approaches and others to interpretivist research approaches, the general discussion on how to improve transparency by the way we report our data should be equally relevant for researchers across different research traditions.

Authors

• Andres Vargas, Yale University

• Juan Masullo, University of Oxford