Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:59:21.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The research interview as a test: Alignment to boundary, topic, and interactional leeway in parental accounts of a child protection procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Stef Slembrouck
Stef Slembrouck
Affiliation:
English Department, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgiumstef.slembrouck@ugent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article concentrates on how interviewees experience the context of semi-structured or open interviews as a “test,” both in terms of being an interviewee and in terms of the roles presupposed in what the interview is about. It invites a reflexive discourse-analytical turn in which we concentrate on the interactional negotiation of various aspects of the interview situation and the interview as an interactional accomplishment. The focus is on the implications for the status of the data that was subsequently obtained, with an eye to locating “the social forces that impress on the ethnographic locale” (Burawoy 1998:15). Insights obtained in this way are argued to bear directly on our understanding of the central research topic under investigation. The data used here have been drawn from a research project on social class and coding orientations in experiential accounts of child protection in Belgium/Flanders. The data base consists of interviews with parent clients. (Data histories, narrative, interview as test, social class, child protection, ethnographic reflexivity)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 40 , Special Issue 1: Narratives in interviews, Interviews in narrative studies , February 2011 , pp. 51 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agar, Michael (1996). Ethnography reconstructed: The professional stranger at fifteen. In Agar, Michael, The professional stranger. An informal introduction to ethnography, 1–51. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Basil (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984). Questions de sociologie. Paris: Lés Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre (2001). Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Éditions Raisons D'Agir.Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles (1986). Learning how to ask. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burawoy, Michael (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16(1):4–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, Aaron (1974). Theory and method in a study of Argentine fertility. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cicourel, Aaron (2003). Reflections on Bourdieu. Paper presented at the 8th International Pragmatics Conference, Toronto.Google Scholar
Dingwall, Robert (1997). Accounts, interviews and observations. In Dingwall, Robert & Miller, Gail (eds.), Context and method in qualitative research, 51–60. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967). On face-work. In Goffman, Erving, Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior, 5–45. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1990). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John (2003). Response essay. In Eerdmans, Susan, Prevignano, Carlo, & Thibault, Paul (eds.), Language and interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, 104–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher; Slembrouck, Stef; & Sarangi, Srikant (2006). Language practices in social workers: Categorization and accountability in child welfare. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ohmann, Richard (1987). The politics of letters. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Ortner, Sherry (1991). Reading America: Preliminary notes on class and culture. In Fox, Richard (ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present, 163–90. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.Google Scholar
Slembrouck, Stef (2001). Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology 21:33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slembrouck, Stef (2005). Discourse, critique and ethnography: Class-oriented coding in accounts of child protection. Language Sciences 27:619–50.Google Scholar
Slembrouck, Stef, & Hall, Christopher, 2003. Caring but not coping: Fashioning a legitimate parent identity. In Hall, Christopher, Juhila, Kirsi, Parton, Nigel, & Pösö, Tarja (eds.), Constructing clienthood in social work and human services, 44–61. London: Jessica Kingley.Google Scholar