Search results

In their daily practice, criminal justice professionals tell stories about their ‘clientele’ and these narratives legitimise their roles and decision-making. My research underscores how narratives of crime inform the practice of youth justice. The research presented in this chapter is based on court case file analysis and interviews with youth justice practitioners, concentrating on how they ‘theorise’ the causes of crime of migrant youth and which interventions they deem appropriate.

The chapter raises a methodological discussion on whether narrative researchers can and should attempt to actively question research participants' accounts, which constitute (penal) harm, introducing an interviewing model that I call ‘light’ Socratic dialogues. The aim of this interviewing style is to gradually move the narrator from doxa (‘common’ knowledge and practice) to episteme and to actively question research participants' accounts. ‘Socrates light’ that I propose in this chapter draws on two bodies of methodological literature. On the one hand, I integrate some principles from ‘active’ interviewing styles, often used in ‘researching up’. On the other hand, I draw on feminist methodology, which offers important insights on how to counterbalance the confronting aspects of ‘active’ interviewing.

The chapter reflects on some of my research interactions and discusses the rationale and the implications of the proposed mode of interviewing. I make three points: first, extensively documenting the interview context and interactions helps us to reflect on the (shifting) narrative performance of those involved in research. Second, becoming ‘active’ as researchers during the interview can enhance the analysis. Third, narrative studies can potentially be transformative if we question the narratives.

This paper aims to examine the current practice of reporting on translation issues in qualitative, interdisciplinary accounting research. Based on an analysis of the methodological consideration of the translation of quotations from non-English interviews and additional interviews with experienced researchers, the authors aim to develop recommendations for the reporting on such translation procedures in future accounting research relying on interviews not conducted in English.

The analysis is based on papers published in four highly ranked interdisciplinary accounting journals: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA) and Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management (QRAM). The subjects of the analysis are publications of non-English-speaking researchers who conducted non-English interviews and therefore were confronted with translation issues when attempting to get published in these English-language journals. Additionally, to gain deeper insights into reporting decisions on language and translation issues, the authors conducted interviews with experienced researchers in the field of qualitative, interdisciplinary accounting research whose mother tongue is not English. The authors combine these empirical insights with current developments in translation studies.

As suggested by translation studies, translation is an act of sense making and reconstruction of meaning, and therefore is a complex task that needs to be carried out with caution. However, the findings suggest that in current interdisciplinary, qualitative accounting research, the reporting of language and translation issues, especially with regards to the translation of quotations from interview data, have so far received only limited attention. The authors therefore call for more awareness of and sensibility toward dealing with language and translation issues, which should be reflected in more transparent reporting on translation processes to support the credibility and authenticity of qualitative accounting studies based on non-English interviews.

This paper is limited to the reporting on the methodological consideration of translating quotations from non-English interviews in papers published in AAAJ, AOS, CPA and QRAM between 2004 and 2015. For future accounting research that relies on such interviews, the authors call for more transparency and provide specific recommendations. This in turn should strengthen the awareness that language and translation are factors to be considered and reported.

This paper is the first to develop recommendations for the reporting of translation processes in accounting research studies, which are based on interviews not led in the English language.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to reflect on the value of e-mails for recruiting and interviewing in a specific context in qualitative research, and second, to reflect on the benefits of the reflexive practice in sharing the research experience for gaining a deeper understanding of the field. The purpose is to raise points for consideration in research design for the e-mail method in this type of study.

The paper draws on reflexivity and integrates fieldwork experiences to present the shared reflections and insights into the enabling and constraining aspects of using e-mail interviews with hard-to-access participants such as senior executives of international businesses.

Closer consideration needs to be given to the use of e-mail interviewing in the research design for such studies, especially regarding culturally held preconceptions about the research environment and how the inevitable challenges in engaging in cross-border research may be resolved.

The paper yields unanticipated insights into the potential of e-mail interviewing for studies that require responses from key informants who are otherwise unlikely to participate in the research. The paper brings greater transparency to researchers regarding the realities of using the method in this context, and thus, it expands the hitherto small repertoire of such studies in qualitative international business research. The contribution also lies in the value of deliberately creating a space for reflexive conversations that open the possibility of more profound understandings in qualitative research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how fund managers in a non-Western country like Malaysia follow investment processes developed in the West and taught in the finance departments of universities.

This convergent interview research investigates how fund managers in Malaysia actually make their decisions, and develops a framework about their investment process.

Understanding the economy was important for the managers but was an ongoing learning process. Their analyses sometimes started bottom-up or top-down, but all followed a four-layer process. The managers did not believe the investment process could be quantified.

Convergent interviewing is meant to be a first step in a complete research program. So, future researchers could consider extending the research to different periods, different research settings in other countries like Singapore, India or Indonesia, different types of investors and different methodologies like surveys.

Practitioners should build on their experience, and understand principles of behavioral finance. Students in business schools should be taught in an experiential way, and school staff should use qualitative methods like convergent interviewing in their research projects.

Contributions centre on the article’s behavioural finance findings that experience and non-quantitative methods are the core of Malaysian investment managers’ decision-making, and on its detailed description of the unusual research methodology in finance of convergent interviewing.

Despite the growing pressure to encourage new ways of thinking about research methodology, only recently have interview methodologists begun to realize that “we cannot lift the results of interviewing out of the contexts in which they were gathered and claim them as objective data with no strings attached”. The purpose of this paper is to provide additional insight based on a critical reflection of the interview as a research method drawing upon Alvesson's discussion from the neopositivist, romanticist and localist interview perspectives. Specifically, the authors focus on critical reflections of three broad categories of a continuum of interview methods: structured, semi‐structured and unstructured interviews.

The authors adopt a critical and reflexive approach to understanding the literature on interviews to develop alternative insights about the use of interviews as a qualitative research method.

After examining the neopositivist (interview as a “tool”) and romanticist (interview as “human encounter”) perspectives on the use of the research interview, the authors adopt a localist perspective towards interviews and argue that the localist approach opens up alternative understanding of the interview process and the accounts produced provide additional insights. The insights are used to outline the skills researchers need to develop in applying the localist perspective to interviews.

The paper provides an alternative perspective on the practice of conducting interviews, recognizing interviews as complex social and organizational phenomena rather than just a research method.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the long‐term effects of qualitative interviews on respondents. The paper offers a reflexive account of the author's research practices with regard to “safeguarding” research participants and researcher accountability.

In 1999‐2002, 20 women and 18 men who are in dual earner marriages/partnerships were interviewed separately. The study was entitled “Hard Labour 1”. In this paper, It is explained how, in 2007, 17 “Hard Labour 1” participants were contacted for a follow‐up study entitled “Hard Labour Revisited”. They were asked, via telephone and e‐mail, whether (and if so, how) they perceived themselves to have been affected by their interview for “Hard Labour 1”.

Some respondents are interviewed at a time of personal anxiety. This group perceived their interview as having been influential because it made them reflect deeply on their situation, bringing their thoughts to bear when they conducted subsequent negotiations with partners. However, participants do not see this as a reason to avoid qualitative research. They describe themselves as agentic beings who felt ownership of their involvement in “Hard Labour 1”. Their approach make to reflect upon the author's interpretation of “safeguarding” which is now regarded as a concept which may be co‐constructed between researcher and participants.

The paper explores “safeguarding” in relation to the long‐term effects of qualitative research interviews. It is suggest that undertaking a reflexive reappraisal of research practices is important because analyses of past projects may (as in the author's case) result in a “shift” in understanding of research concepts from both an empirical and a theoretical perspective.

Notes that research interviews form a popular option for practitioner and student research, as they have distinct advantages in eliciting unique information and opinion about the research setting. Points out that it is easy to underestimate the challenges of research interviews ‐ getting reliable responses, organizing and presenting the findings, and guarding against subjective involvement by the researcher. Aims to open up these issues and provide guidance to current reading.

The purpose of this paper is to guide future researchers and practitioners into the process of interviewing in the Chinese context.

The methodology used is an empirical critical reflection.

The authors identified 11 major themes such as how to get an interview, antecedents of the interview, building rapport, complexity, language, interview settings, interview procedure, stages, probing and sensitive topics, selection of respondents and post-interview.

The location of the interviews.

Guide foreigner researchers and managers on how to conduct interviews in China.

The context matters, and only with a specific approach some can perform well and achieve the interview objectives. Doing so, the researcher or practitioner will not create situations that might be problematic for her/him and the interviewee. Based on the above, the authors’ research decreases potential social tensions that interview situations can create.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no other researcher has studied the specificities of interviewing in China, which brings originality and value to the authors’ research.

This article presents our experiences of conducting research interviews with Australian academics, in order to reflect on the politics of researcher and participant positionality. In particular, we are interested in the ways that academic networks, hierarchies and cultures, together with mobility in the higher education sector, contribute to a complex discursive terrain in which researchers and participants alike must maintain vigilance about where they ‘put their feet’ in research interviews. We consider the implications for higher education research, arguing that the positionality of researchers and participants pervades and exceeds these specialised research situations.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that qualitative researchers have much to learn from conducting methodological analyses of their own talk in relation to research participants in interviews. Yet there are specific difficulties in representing findings from methodological analyses of research interviews.

Although qualitative researchers have for some time followed recommendations to analyze both “how” interview data are generated in addition to “what” is discussed, little has been written about the challenges of representing these sorts of analyses. The paper uses a case to first examine difficulties in the representation of an analysis of interview data that draws on discursive psychology. After discussing the case, the paper further explores the challenges of conducting and presenting these sorts of methodological analyses of interview data to research participants and readers in ways that clearly convey what might be learned by examining how interviews are accomplished.

The paper outlines considerations for researchers in doing methodological analyses of interview data, including challenges, reconciling interpretations of “what” and “how” topics are discussed in research studies, and possible areas of focus.

This paper examines what researchers might learn from examinations of their own interview practice and does not focus on representations of topical analyses.

The paper argues that when interviewers subject their own talk to analysis, they learn about themselves, their craft, and the ways in which knowledge about social worlds are collaboratively produced in research encounters with participants.

By developing expertise in how to analyze their interview interaction methodologically, qualitative researchers can attend to significant features of their interview practice and in so doing, develop a reflexive research practice.