4
Q: But there is an exchange regarding methods?
A: Not much.
Q: In what form?
A: There is some exchange of know how about reconstitution methods of membrane proteins.
The interviewed biologist finally described an exchange of know how, because it was
regarded in the investigation as a specific type of collaboration. The interviewee, however, did
not regard the exchange of know how as collaboration ("there are no collaborations in the word
sense"). If the interviewer would have simply asked "with whom do you collaborate?" she would
never have been told about these specific collaborations because the interviewee understood the
term ‘collaboration’ differently. In our example, the scientist regarded transmission of know how
a very weak interaction that does not merit the notion ‘collaboration’.
Operationalisation in this sense means attempting to link what the investigator is interested in
to the interviewees’ everyday experiences, which are often formulated using concepts from their
science. In the case of interviewing an informed approach appears to be indispensable because
qualitative interviewing means freely talking about the scientists’ experiences, namely scientific
practice.
2.3 Informed interviewing is necessary to probe deeply and to demonstrate competence
A third reason for informed interviewing is provided by the general methodology of
qualitative interviewing. The literature provides two arguments for a well informed questioning.
A first argument refers to the qualitative interview’s specificity and depth. In order to reconstruct
social situations by means of qualitative interviewing, we need specific and detailed information
about these situations. The interviewer must translate her interest into the context of the
interviewee. Otherwise, an understanding of the interviewee’s attitudes and actions is impossible
(Merton et al. 1956; Hopf 1978: 99-101). Moreover, the interviewer must often support the
interviewee in explaining the meaning of situations and the interviewee’s reactions to them
(ibid.). The interview sequence regarding collaboration provided in the previous section
illustrates that point: without a specification of the interviewee’s interactions with his colleagues,
collaborations could not be identified.
The second argument states that in order to be taken seriously it is important for the
interviewer to demonstrate competence. As Rubin and Rubin put it:
Your informed questions signal the interviewees that you have done your homework, made an effort, and
have not just come to pick their brain. You have gone as far as you can go with the available material and
now you need some help. (Rubin and Rubin 1995: 198)
The understanding of an interviewee’s science that an investigator can acquire prior to an
interview is, of course, very limited. However, our experience supports that this limited
understanding is sufficient to conduct in-depth interviews. Even if we got it wrong, it was at least
obvious – and always very beneficial to the interview atmosphere! - that we tried.
Convention