Joint Interviewing Research Articles

Tightening the gap between actions & recollections: A methodological toolkit for analytical descriptions of bodily know-how

The article offers a hands-on methodological toolkit for researchers who are not able to embody the bodily dimension of the cultural practice they are researching. This is not about extracting one kind of knowledge from another one, but about coming to (partial) representations of embodied knowledge. Knowing that bodily knowledge is hard to put into words, the article deals with how to trigger different modes of communication in informants in order to, as a researcher, come to more accurate analytical descriptions of bodily know-how. This article discusses a combination of techniques that trigger informants into these different modes of communication. Bundled together I call these elicitation techniques trigger techniques to emphasize the importance of combining different types of techniques prompting different levels of sensory experiences. Taking de-escalation of Dutch night-life security as an exemplary case, this article illustrates the merits of a combination of the following trigger techniques: personal and repurposed YouTube video elicitation; situational drawings; joint interviewing; multivocal vignettes; on-the-spot triggering; and reenactments. The combination of trigger techniques tightens the ‘interpretation gap’ between pre-reflective bodily know-how and the accounts thereof for scientific purposes and in that sense provide a beneficial tool for researcher and participant. By narrowing down the range of interpretation between social reality and scientific reconstruction of the phenomenon researchers can do more justice to bodily practices.

Conducting Joint Interviews With Couples: Ethical and Methodological Challenges.

Scholars have recently begun to discuss joint interviewing from a methodological perspective, generally presenting a favorable view of this mode of interviewing. In the present article, the author draws on her experiences with interviewing obstructive sleep apnea patients and their partners to shed further light on the methodological and ethical challenges of joint interviews. Specifically, it is shown that joint interviews may become a site in which one partner silences the other and enacts symbolic violence, with the interviewer as unwilling abettor, or alternatively may facilitate passivity. Joint interviewing may therefore prevent researchers from giving an equal voice to both partners, resulting in partial and fragmented data. In addition, the joint approach may generate tension between members of the couple and harm the quality of relationships, thus contravening the researcher's commitment to non-maleficence. The author points to a few possible solutions and suggests interviewing social partners as an alternative to couples.

Ethical considerations when conducting joint interviews with close relatives or family: an integrative review.

Researchers are obligated to do no harm to participants of research. Conflicts in relationships can cause negative well-being; therefore, insight is needed into the particular ethical considerations that arise when conducting joint interviews with close relatives or family members simultaneously in the healthcare setting. To collect and share knowledge related to ethical considerations conducting joint interviews. A literature review inspired by the integrative review method was performed. Data were retrieved through a structured search in PubMed, CINAHL and the Philosopher's Index and Academic Search Premier for articles published in English from 1980 to 2016 and included 18 articles, of a possible 2153. Article content was assessed line-by-line, and ethical considerations were extracted and organized in three subgroups regarding: Planning joint interviews; Conduction joint interviews and Reporting on joint interviews Findings: Participants should be offered the best terms for a constructive, on-going relationship after the joint interview has ended. This obligates the researcher to ensure a safe environment during the joint interview and create a delicate balance between the needs of the participants, using nonconfrontational techniques that foster equal and neutral but dedicated attention to all parties, before, during and after the joint interviews. Specific ethical considerations should be taken into account before, during and after joint interviewing. Further research is needed before a final conclusion can be drawn.

Using Joint Interviews to Add Analytic Value.

Joint interviewing has been frequently used in health research, and is the subject of a growing methodological literature. We review this literature, and build on it by drawing on a case study of how people make decisions about taking statins. This highlights two ways in which a dyadic approach to joint interviewing can add analytic value compared with individual interviewing. First, the analysis of interaction within joint interviews can help to explicate tacit knowledge and to illuminate the range of often hard-to-access resources that are drawn upon in making decisions. Second, joint interviews mitigate some of the weaknesses of interviewing as a method for studying practices; we offer a cautious defense of the often-tacit assumption that the "naturalness" of joint interviews strengthens their credibility as the basis for analytic inferences. We suggest that joint interviews are a particularly appropriate method for studying complex shared practices such as making health decisions.

Interviewing with or without the partner present?--an underexposed dilemma between ethics and methodology in nursing research.

To discuss ethical and methodological challenges related to in-depth interviews with patients and partners when interviewed together or separately. Increased interest in exploring illness phenomena from both patients' and partners' perspectives has emerged. The decision about how to collect data is challenging. Patients and partners can be interviewed separately or together; in both scenarios researchers face complex questions of methodology and ethics. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on individual or joint interviewing and the effect of absence/presence of the partner on data collection. Discussion paper that draws on data from three phenomenological studies. Referring to three cases from our phenomenological studies, we discuss the different types of ethical and methodological dilemmas faced when undertaking joint and separate interviews with couples. Furthermore, we discuss how the unexpected presence of the partner potentially influences the data gathered from the patient. The cases demonstrate the interrelatedness of ethics and methodology in studies based on in-depth interviews with couples. Nurse researchers may be caught up in a dilemma between ethical concerns and methodological considerations. We argue that the presence of the partner during an interview session might influence the data and favour expressions of shared rather than individual experiences of the phenomenon studied. Furthermore, we argue that ethical concerns must be given higher priority than methodology when interviewing couples. An increased awareness of the tension between ethical and methodological challenges in joint or individual interviewing with patients and partners is necessary, as this issue is underexposed.

Interviewing fathers and sons together: Exploring the potential of joint interviews for research on family farms

The use of joint interviews – interviewing two people together focussing on the same topic – has been a relatively underutilised research approach. Whilst the pages of this journal have demonstrated the vitality of research utilising more qualitative research methods, the research therein has reflected the wider social science literature in which the use of joint interviews has been a relatively ad hoc application, with little critical reflection on what such an approach might offer the research process. Drawing on interviews with farming fathers and sons in Hampshire and West Sussex (UK) this paper fills this research gap by exploring the interview dynamic(s) and narratives that joint interviewing might bring forward. It is seen that processes of co-narration can add to the research encounter not only through the material that it may reveal, but also in terms of how such narratives are constructed, shared and (re)worked within the interview. In addition to seeing a second interviewee as a co-narrator, the paper also shows that they may provide an audience which challenges their partner to reflect on their own interview contribution as well as providing a second interviewer–interviewee dynamic through which they may reflect on and rework their own contribution. Set within the literature influenced by the ‘reflexive turn’, which recognises that the interview is a site of performance, the paper considers how joint interview narratives might be used to develop particular subject positions and illustrates how this a conjoined process between the narratives of fathers and their sons.

The Effect of Joint Interviewing on the Performance of Gender

The authors report a series of controlled comparisons of fifty-eight one-to-one qualitative interviews and thirty-seven mixed-sex joint interviews on the same health-related topics. Their analysis identifies comparative keyword frequencies and is supported by qualitative investigations of keywords in context, drawing on existing relevant knowledge of common gender differences in language choice. Gender differences are reduced and women's perspectives are more prominent in joint interviews, so researchers wanting to find out about men's experiences concerning health-related topics such as those associated with fatherhood may find out more in one-to-one interviews with men. The greater readiness of men to engage in gender-stereotyped behavior in sole interviews, most of which involved a female interviewer, suggests that an interviewer's gender identity is perceived as somewhat neutral by comparison with the considerable salience of the gender of a joint respondent. This finding potentially contributes to knowledge of the qualitative interview as a special form of institutional talk.

Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer.

Joint interviewing lies somewhere between individual in-depth interviews and focus groups in the panoply of qualitative methodology, yet it has been little explored or described in health research. This article sets out to reflect on the process of choosing to combine joint and individual interviews in the context of a study on the needs of cancer patients and their carers. Questions of intrusion, inclusion, power, and difference caused the researchers to refine their research methods and become more responsive to the preferences of their participants. The article goes on to describe the kind of data generated by joint interviewing and to consider questions of analysis. The author concludes by suggesting that in appropriate circumstances, joint interviewing offers a valuable method of enquiry.

Video recording of children's evidence: Report of A One Day Conference -17 June 1994, Dunadry Inn

Abstract Dr. K- F. McCoy, Chief Inspector SSI Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in 1988 recommended that the mainstay of effective action in dealing with child sexual abuse was close working relationships between the professional agencies. A major element in this is the joint interviewing by police and social workers which has been governed by a joint investigation protocol and supported by joint training.

A Study of Joint Interviewing in the Treatment of Marital Problems: Part II

A Study of Joint Interviewing in the Treatment of Marital Problems: Part II

A Study of Joint Interviewing in the Treatment of Marital Problems: Part I

A Study of Joint Interviewing in the Treatment of Marital Problems: Part I

Joint Interviewing by Field Instructor and Student

Joint Interviewing by Field Instructor and Student

Joint Interviewing with Marital Partners

Joint Interviewing with Marital Partners

Conjoint Therapy in Marriage Counseling

During its early years, marriage counseling placed more emphasis on the marital relationship, stressed the use of one counselor, and made limited use of joint interviews. Marriage counselors generally failed, however, to develop the potential inherent in joint interviewing, while family therapists made increasing use of it. Conjoint therapy aids in the identification and working through of distortions, helps hold transference and counter-transference in check, quickly brings marital conflict into the open and into the counseling sessions, and emphasizes current relationship problems. Conjoint therapy is not a panacea, however. It requires new skills of counselors and is demanding work. It is probably inappropriate with some types of clients and problems.

Four-Way Joint Interviewing in Marital Counseling

Four-Way Joint Interviewing in Marital Counseling

Joint Interviewing: A Treatment Technique with Marital Partners

Joint Interviewing: A Treatment Technique with Marital Partners