Spare a thought for the humble interview
Interviews get a hard rap. The unacknowledged workhorse of social research spends all it’s time at work out in the field and when it returns home to the studio, it’s to hear everybody dissing it because “ethnography reveals what users do, not what they say they do.” This little phrase reveals more about the model of ethnography in design practice than anything else I’ve heard or read.
It’s high time that the interview got a little love. I’ll come right out and say it, the interview is the mainstay of my practice and I’d be willing to bet that of most others if they looked their toolkit straight in the eye.
Let’s get the semantics out of the way first. What most proponents of ‘what users do’ assume is that straight observation somehow gets you an unmediated direct line to the truth, as opposed to the scratchy, broken telephone that is discussion. Whilst my tone may let on that I take issue with this assumption, positioning itself as it does at one of the extreme poles of the participant/observer gradient, I want to make an argument for interviews, not simply against observation. One hundred percent observation is often the most appropriate method, particularly where straight forward empirical evidence is required. It’s the mantra that I take issue with.
If observation lies at one pole, what’s at the other? That would be one hundred percent participation, or “going native” in somewhat unhelpful old skool. Just as observation is often entirely appropriate, I’m one of those who feels that one hundred percent participation can also be a valid, helpful, and entirely human approach, even without the extra label of scientific.
So you’re not scared of a little subjectivity then? Good, because it can help out a lot when you settle down somewhere in the middle of the gradient. That easy middle ground where we’re sipping the Kool Aid but not drinking it all down in one gulp. Here’s where we can start to communicate. This is the bit the observation advocates forget. If you’re speaking to someone, it’s become an interview, even if you keep a video camera shoved in their face. They’re not ‘doing’, they’re subjectively engaging, just as you are. And admitting that goes a long way to establishing the rapport that means what people are saying to you is close to how they represent themselves in their “normal surroundings”. It’s not “truth” folks, I thought that one got laid to rest already.
Ok, ok, I hear the ‘real’ ethnographers squirming in the back there. Spending long periods of time with people and in settings will help you validate your theory and develop context. No 2 hour interview will let you do that. True, but that’s apples and orchards. ‘Real’ ethnography in my book is a program, not a method. It’s talking with people and participating in their lives, building context over time. Talking to people is a basic unit of both. Straight observation is something else entirely.
That’s why, resources being what they are, I’d rather do an interview for 2 hours than 2 hours of observation in most cases. And I’d guess that’s the reality of the situation for most jobbing design researchers. Hands up if you’ve found a magic formula for selling long term ethnographic projects to your clients, I’d love to hear how you do it! And if you think two days is an improvement on two hours, well, yeah, I’ll give you that, but not by much.
Finally, there’s what I consider the most compelling reason to give the interview the respect it deserves. Comparing what people say they do with what they do is apples and oranges. I’m not arguing that what people say they do is literal truth for interviewers anymore than what they do is for observers. What I’m saying is that what people say is interesting and useful, whether it’s true or not. What people say, how they articulate their representation, even where this isn’t strictly accurate, gives insight into a range of important issues such as values and identity.
Interviews aren’t just raw data, they’re resources for examining how people interact with the issues you’re interested in. And if you hold a gun (with the words Commercial Reality engraved on the handle) to my head and say “you’ve got 2 hours to figure out what’s interesting to your client in this person’s world,” 8 times out of 10 I’m gonna want to chat.
Of course I reserve the right to use the most appropriate method. I never rule out drinking the Kool Aid or just hanging out and seeing what goes down. I’m just saying, ease up on the tenuous ethno-mantra and give chat a chance!
Comments (0)