INTERV~EWINGAS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
to connect to the experiences of those in it? In our community college
study, we had to have participants to reflect vocational and liberal
arts faculty, men, women, and minorities, and age and experience ranges.
We also considered faculty with advanced degrees and without degrees. In
addition, we were reluctant to interview only one person in any articular
category.
The other criterion is saturation of information. A number of writers
(Douglas, 1976; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Rubin &
Rubin, 1995) discuss a point in a study at which the interviewer begins to
hear the same information reported. He or she is no longer learning any-
thing new. Douglas (1985) is even bold enough to attempt to assess when
that began to happen in his studies. If he had to pick a number, he said, it
would be 25 participants.
I would be reluctant to establish such a number. "Enough" is an
interactive reflection of every step of the interview process and different
for each study and each researcher. The criteria of sufficiency and satura-
tion are useful, but practical exigencies of time, money, and other re-
sources alsoplay a role, especially in doctoral research. On the other hand,
if I were to err, I would err on the side of more rather than less. I have
seen some graduate students struggle to make sense of data that are just
too thin because they did not interview enough participants. Interviewing
fewer participants may save time earlier in the study, but may add compli-
cations and frustration at the point of working with, analyzing, and inter-
preting the interview data.
The method of in-depth, phenomenological interviewing applied to a
sample of participants who all experience similar structural and social
conditions gives enormous power to the stories of a relatively few partici-
pants. Researchers can figure out ahead of time the range of sites and
people that they would like to sample and set a goal for a certain number
of participants in the study. At some point, however, the interviewer may
recognize that he or she is not learning anything decidedly new and that
the process of interviewing itself is becoming laborious rather than plea-
surable (Bertaux, 1981). That is a time to say "enough."
Affirming informed Consent
First-time interviewers tend to be hesitant about securing their partici-
pants' informed, written consent to be interviewed. Some interviewers
worry that telling people what they are studying will skew the results of
their study. They also tend to minimize participants' sense of risk at being
involved in an interview. The interviewers have no doubt about their own
good intentions, but they do not anticipate the type of material that can
be generated in an in-depth interview.
In-depth interviews, however, ask participants to reconstruct their
life history as it relates to the subject of inquiry. In the process, a measure
of intimacy can develop between interviewers and participants that leads
the participants to share aspects of their lives that, if misused, could leave
them extremely vulnerable. Participants have the right to be protected
against such vulnerability (Kelman, 1977).Furthermore, interviewers can
protect themselves against misunderstanding through the process of seek-
ing informed consent, which requires them to be explicit about the range
and purpose of their study in a way that makes them be clear about what
they are doing. Finally, given the extensiveness of the interview process
and the method of following up on what the participants have to say (see
Chapter 6), providing people ahead of time with as much information as
possible about each aspect of the study is not likely to skew the results of
4 Y2 hours of interviewing.
The relatively recent impetus toward protecting rights of research
participants stems from the reaction to the disregard for human dignity
perpetrated during World War I1 by researchers in concentration camps
controlled by Nazi Germany. The Nuremburg trials resulted in the Nurem-
berg Code adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1946,
which stated that "the voluntary consent of the human subject is abso-
lutely essential" (Reynolds, 1979, p. 436).

50 INTERVIEWING AS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
After World War 11, federal guidelines concerning the protection of
the rights of human subjects were issued in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and
1980s. (See Applebaum, Lidz, & Meisel, 1987; Faden & Beauchamp,
1986.) The guidelines were originally applied broadly to all research sup-
ported directly by federal funds and to all conducted in institutions receiv-
ing federal funds.
That broad interpretation was narrowed significantlyin 1981to cover
onlytheformer (Reynolds,1982).The 1996regulations maintained the nar-
rower focus on research involving human subjects conducted or supported
by federal departments or agencies or otherwise subject to regulation by a
federal agency, such asthe food and drug administration (Protectionof Hu-
man Subjects, 1996, $$ 46.101 & 46.102). However, most institutions of
higher education, in order to demonstrate their adherence to the spirit and
intent of federal guidelines, continue to require informed consent in all re-
search involvinghuman subjects unless no risk at all isinvolved.
Much research on "normal educational practices" in educational set-
tings is technically exempted from the informed-consent requirement by
the federal guidelines ($ 46.101). However, research in educational set-
tings in which
(I) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects
can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and
(ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research
could reasonably place the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or be
damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation
(5 46.101, (b)(I) & (ii)).
are subject to the federal guideline protecting the rights of human subjects.
The basic federal policy presupposed asurvey type of interviewing in
which the identity of the participant isnot known, thedatacollectedarenot
sensitive, and no harm can be envisioned for the participants (Reynolds,
1982).In-depth interviewing, however, cannot be likened to routine survey
interviewing. First, the topic of inquiry, no matter how apparently inno-
cent, is placed within the total life context of the participant. That contex-
tual exploration is likely to raise sensitive issues. Second, the interviews are
recorded and the identity of the participant, even disguised, is potentially
discernibleby someonewho knows him or her. Third, thepotential vulnera-
bility of the participant cannot be calculated ahead of time.
THE CONSENT FORM
For the reasons explained above, even though an interviewer's re-
search may not be funded by federal sources and informed consent of
participants is therefore not legally necessary, and seeking explicit in-
formed written consent may provide some complexities, I think it is both
ethically and methodologically desirable to seek it. The consent of the
participant is most effectively indicated by his or her signature on an
informed consent form.
The consent form should cover the following main points:
1. Who, for whom, and to what end? The form should tell the partici-
pants what they are being asked to do, by whom, and for what pur-
pose. Participants must know the identity of the researcher, his or her
affiliations if any, and whom to contact for information if they have
problems with the research process.
2. Risks and vulne~ability.It should inform the participants of any risks
they might be taking by participating in the research. A participant
might not face physical risk but might be made vulnerable by what he
or she says. The consent form should indicate what steps the researcher
is taking to reduce such a possibility.
3. Right to participate or not. It should indicate that participation in
the research is voluntary. Participants are free to participate or not
participate in the research without prejudice to them.
4. Rights of review and withdrawalfrom the process. It should inform the
participants what rights they have in the process, particularly the right
to review the material and the right to withdraw from the process.
5. Anonymity. It should indicate whether or not participants' names will
be used in the study, whether any other names will be used, or whether
pseudonyms will be substituted.
6. Dissemination. It should indicate how the results of the study will be
disseminated. The form should allow the participant to indicate clearly
his or her agreement to releasing the interview material to be dissemin-
ated as indicated. This point should also be clear about whether partici-
pants can expect to benefit in any way, monetarily or otherwise, from
participating in the study.
7. Special conditions for children. In the case of children, the consent
form must be signed by the child's parent or legal guardian and as-
sented to as appropriate by the child. (Protection of Human Subjects,
1996, $ 46.408).
In what follows I explicate, in order, the issues and complexities in-
volved in each of the seven major points of an informed consent form. I
have avoided the temptation to replicate a sample of an informed consent
form because I think merely copying such an example could lead a re-
searcher into trouble. I urge doctoral candidates and other researchers to
grapple with the logic of each of the points listed above. Then they can

52 INTERVIEWINGAS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
develop a written consent form based on their understanding of the logic
and the particulars of their research project.
1. WHO, FOR WHOM, AND TO WHAT END?
As explained earlier, in the first of the three interviews, participants
reconstruct aspects of their personal histories that may be quite personal.
In the second of the three interviews, participants are asked to reconstruct
the details of their experience within the subject area being studied. In the
third interview, participants are asked what meaning they make of their
experience.Participants have a right to know the full identity of the person
requesting this type of information. For example, if the interviewer is both
an employee of the school district in which he or she is interviewing and a
doctoral candidate at a university, the interviewer should state both rele-
vant parts of his or her identity. Participants also have the right to know
that the work is being done as part of a research project that will lead to a
dissertation, or any other purpose that the research is serving. Further-
more, students talking about their experiences in classes, and teachers,
counselors, and administrators talking about their experiences at work,
have the right to be told explicitly with whom the interview material will
be shared, and in what forum it will be disseminated (seepoint 6). More-
over, researchers have an obligation to structure their research process so
that they will not be likely to share raw interview data with anyone
who would be in a position to capitalize on the information or to make
participants vulnerable as a result (seepoint 2).
If the study is sponsored in any way, that sponsorshipshould be made
clear to participants. Sponsorship may range from a school system's en-
dorsement of and interest in the results to active financial support of
the research. No matter where on the continuum the support falls, the
interviewer has an obligation to inform the participant of the nature of
the sponsorship. The participant must be free to engage or not to engage
in the research knowing who else is interested in it and to what possible
uses it might be put.
2,3, AND 4. RISKS, VULNERABILITY, AND RIGHTS
The notion of risks and rights in the informed consent process derives
from the fact that much research is conducted in the medical field, in
which the participants may actually be at some physical risk. But even in
interviewing studies, participants may be made vulnerable by the re-
AFFIRMING INFORMED CONSENT 53
publicly sharing aspects of their lives that they consider private
and that they may feel may injure their dignity (Kelman, 1977).
The Oral History Association issues guidelines for those doing oral
history interviewing (Oral History Association, 1992). Its seventh guide-
line in a section entitled "Responsibility to Interviewees" states: "Inter-
viewers should guard against possible exploitation of interviewees" (p. 7).
Researchers must therefore consider what steps they can take to reduce the
threat of exploiting their participants, or making them vulnerable, or
somehow injuring their dignity. These steps may often be connected to the
rights the participants have in the process of being interviewed. (The Oral
History Association's guidelines are particular to the task of oral history
interviewing. They overlap but are not completely relevant to the type of
research interviewing described in this book. They represent, however,
the most explicit set of guidelines that I have seen for dealing with a
wide range of ethical and professional issues that those doing interviewing
research may face.)
Participation in Research Must Be Voluntary
The first right, as stated earlier, is that participation in research must
be completely voluntary and that volunteering is based on being informed.
If a participant choosesnot to participate in research, such a choice cannot
be prejudicial to the participant. For example, if a researcher is doing
research in a classroom, students (and their parents) have a right to say
that they will not participate. Their choosing not to participate can in no
way affect their progress in the class or their grade.
The Right to Withdraw and to Review
A second and third right is that participants have the right to with-
draw from the research and review the interview material, and ask that
portions not be used.
The three 90-minute interviews are designedto build a framework for
a relationship between the interviewer and the participant that is equita-
ble and leads to a reasonable level of trust between the two. The intimate
process of a participant's placing experience in the context of his or her life
and meeting repeatedly over a period of a few weeks for discussion may
lead a participant to divulge information that he or she later regrets shar-
ing. The researcher must make clear that the participant has the right to
withdraw from the study at any time during the interviews or within a
specified time after they are completed. In addition, the participant must
have the right to withhold any part of the interview data he or she chooses.

54 INTERVIEWING AS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
What is less clear is what right the participant has to review and
approve the way the interviewer has worked with the material gathered
in the study. The interviewer may well choose to work out a way for the
participant to have access to both the raw data and the way he or she has
worked with that information in writing up the study. The interviewer
may offer to share copies of the audiotapes or transcriptions of those tapes.
Such sharing would facilitate the participant's ability to review the inter-
view experience and to decide whether to ask the interviewer not to use
certain parts of the material.
Finally, the interviewer may offer to share the entire report before
publication or the parts of the final report that most concern a participant.
Some scholars of qualitative research consider this step to be crucial for
the credibility of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).In the interview work
I have done, I have often used extensive profiles of the participants crafted
in their own words from the interview transcripts. When I have crafted a
profile from a participant's experience, I contact the person and offer to
share the profile with her or him before I disseminate it. If the participant
asks to review the profile, I send it. I do so with the stipulation that I want
to know if it contains anything inaccurate or unfair to the larger inter-
view. I also want to know if there is anything in the profile with which
the participant is uncomfortable.
Although I would not disseminate anything that a participant told me
at this stage would make him or her vulnerable, neither would I give the
person automatic censure on matters of interpretation. One participant in
our community college study asked me to delete a portion of the profile 1
had developed of him, in his own words, in which he said that he was not
proud of working at his community college. I agreed to delete the passage
to which he was referring because he felt that it could make him vulnera-
ble if he were identified. But later in an interpretive section of the study,
not tied to any single participant, I discussed the issue of community
college faculty's sense of status in their jobs, keeping what that participant
had told me in mind.
At some point the interviewer-researcher has to become responsible
for what he or she writes. In this instance, I felt somewhat compromised
in taking that responsibility because the participant had asked me to delete
important information that had informed part of my analysis. On the
other hand, I was committed to preserving the dignity of participants and
not making them vulnerable as a result of their participation in the study.
As in many other aspects of interviewing research, the researcher has to
balance conflicting claims. The interviewer must be willing to take owner-
ship of the material and be responsible for the consequences. I do not think
the researcher can shift the burden of that responsibility to the participant,
and yet the participant has an interest in how the researcher carries it
out.
Whatever the interviewer decides to do about the participant's rights
of review, as in the case of remuneration (seepoint 6), the most important
point is to be explicit. Inequity in interviewing results more often from a
researcher's being unclear about the framework within which interviewer
and participant are working than from any decision on a specific issue.
(For an interesting discussion of what can happen when an interviewer
does not clarify the responsibility she intended to take for the interviewing
material, see Lightfoot, 1983.)
Confidentiality and the Legal Status of Data
Participants also have a right to know in what form material from
their interviews will be shared with the public. I have often seen drafts of
written consent forms in which interviewers promise that the material
they gather will be kept confidential. Keeping material "confidential"
means no one sees it other than the interviewer. Although it may be
possible in medical or survey research to keep individual responses confi-
dential and to report only in aggregate terms, such a promise is inconsis-
tent with the purpose and method of in-depth interviewing research. Most
people who interview do so because they want to make the experience of
individuals accessible to others. In addition, research information is not
privileged and is thereby subject to subpoena by the courts (Reynolds,
1979).
The first of the Principles of Professional Responsibility of the Ameri-
can Anthropological Association (1983)states:
In research, anthropologists' paramount responsibility is to those they study.
When there is a conflict of interest, these individuals must come first.Anthro-
pologists must do everything in their power to protect the physical, social,
and psychological welfare and to honor the dignity and privacy of those
studied. (p. 1)
When we were doing our study of community college faculty, we
interviewed a small number of students to understand how their experi-
ence related to what the faculty were telling us. In one of the interviews,
a student participant revealed that he occasionally sold drugs on the cam-
pus. Our research team discussed the situation. We knew that legally we
could not keep the information confidential; nor ethically could we make
the participant vulnerable through his participation in our research.
We were in a very uncomfortable position. Although it was not likely

56 INTERVIEWINGAS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
to happen, this particular person might be arrested, and our interview
data somehow subpoenaed and used against him. Though we did not
condone his pushing marijuana on the campus, we would not have known
of it through any way other than our interviews. We did not feel that
we could make him more vulnerable than he already was as a result of
participating in our study. As interesting as the story he was telling us was,
we decided that the best course of action was to terminate the interviews
and destroy the tapes. It was not an altogether comfortable resolution.
(SeeYow, 1994, pp. 93-95, for an excellent discussion of this issue.)
5. ANONYMITY
Extensive use of participants' words leads to one of the central issues
in informed consent, that of anonymity. The standard assumption is that
participants in in-depth interview studies will remain anonymous. That
assumption has implications for interviewers from the moment they start
their research. In their proposals, for instance, which are usually public
and accessible documents, they should avoid listing names of sites or of
people that could be traced later when the research is completed.
Interviewers working with in-depth interview material, however,
cannot guarantee anonymity. The center of the research is the experience
of the participants, gathered within the context of their lives. Because a
considerable part of that experience may be shared in the research report,
a reader who knows the participant may recognize him or her.
Nonetheless, the interviewer can work to protect the anonymity of
the participant and can say how that will be done in the written consent
form. For example, the participant has the right to know who will tran-
scribe the interview audiotapes. If it is not to be the interviewer, the
interviewer can tell what steps will be taken to assure that the transcriber
does not misuse information about the identity of the participant. Second,
the participant can be assured that transcriptions will contain only initials
for all proper names, so that even if a casual reader were somehow to see
the transcripts, no proper names would be present. Third, the interviewer
can promise to use pseudonyms in the final report. Fourth, in some cases
the interviewer can choose to actively disguise the participant's identity.
In her study The Contextual Realities of Being a Lesbian Physical
Educator: Living in Two Worlds, Woods (1990)was concerned that her
participants would be vulnerable if they could be identified. As part of her
written consent form, she made the following statement and outlined the
steps that she would take to protect -but not guarantee- her participants'
anonymity:
AFFIRMING INFORMED CONSENT 57
In a study of this nature, the anonymity of participants is a priority. Although
anonymity can not be fully guaranteed, the following are steps taken at each
stage of the research process to protect your anonymity.
A. Access to participants has been gained in two ways: (a) my personal
contacts; and (b) contacts given by those being interviewed. All initial con-
tacts with a potential participant will be made by the person or participant
suggesting the teacher to be interviewed. I will contact the potential partici-
pant directly only if she has agreed to discuss the possibility of being inter-
viewed.
B. All interviews will take place in a safe space to be designated by the
participant.
C. The researcher will not interview more than one teacher employed
in a single district.
D. With the exception of the dissertation committee chairperson, I will
not discuss with the dissertation committee or anyone else any names, teach-
ing locations or identifying particulars of the participants.
E. Interview transcripts may be completed by two persons: (a) myself;
and/or (b) a reputable and discrete transcriber. If someone other than myself
transcribes the audio tapes, I will erase from the audio-tapes all names and
identifying particulars before submitting them for transcription.
F. As stated, pseudonyms will be substituted in the transcripts for all
names of persons, schools, school districts, cities, towns, and counties. Every
step will be taken to adequately disguise the participant's identity and teach-
ing location in any published materials or presentations.
G. The transcripts will remain in the direct physical possession of the
researcher. All audio-tapes and consent forms are kept in a safety deposit
box. Tapes will be destroyed upon acceptance of the dissertation or, at your
request, will be returned to you. (p. 224)
Woods felt that her participants would be taking risks by participat-
ing in her study. To protect them and to establish conditions in which they
would feel safe to talk, she devised the most effective and practical means
she could to minimize those risks. Although I was concerned about her
promise to destroy the audiotapes of the interviews, the care she took to
protect her participants' identity without guaranteeing them anonymity,
and her explicitness with potential participants, seemed to me a model of
forthrightness.
As Woods indicates, if the likelihood of a participant's being identified
is high, and if being so identified would make him or her vulnerable, it
may be best to disguise the person's identity. This measure, which is more
active than giving the participant a pseudonym, might involve changing
the location in which the person resides or the specific nature of the activ-
ity being reconstructed. For example, in In the Words of the Faculty
(Seidman, 1985), I changed the state in which one participant taught as

58 INTERVIEWING AS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
well as the subject she taught. The guidelines the researcher must use in
judging the appropriateness of such changes are whether the likelihood of
a participant's being identified is high, whether he or she would be made
vulnerable if identified, and whether the disguise can be effected in a way
that does not distort the data.
Informed consent assumes but does not require anonymity (Reynolds,
1979). What it does require is that the participants be informed, before
the interviews begin, as to whether steps will be taken to protect their
identity. At least one writer (Mishler, 1986), however, argues that ano-
nymity is not automatically a good thing and that participants should be
given the choice as to whether they wish their names to be used. My
experience leads me to suggest that interviews be conducted under the
assumption that the interviewer will take steps to protect the anonymity
of the participants. After the interview is completed, the participants will
be in a better position to judge whether they wish to conceal their identi-
ties.
JointOwnership of lnterview Material
Valerie Raleigh Yow (1994) has an excellent chapter about the ethics
and legalities of interviewing, especially as they apply to the informed
consent process. She takes the position (at least partially based on Hirsch,
1982) that the copyright law of 1976 establishes that the moment the
researcher shuts off the tape recorder, the tape belongs jointly to both
the participant and the researcher. The idea of joint ownership means that
the researcher must secure from the participant a release to use the inter-
view material as the researcher plans to use it.
The Extensive Use of lnterview Data
One aspect of the researcher's plans that should be clear to the partici-
pant is the extent to which the researcher might use the material from the
interview. In Chapter 8, I discuss ways of working with the material
and disseminating it. Suffice it to say here that the intent of this type of
interviewing is to use as much as possible the words of the participants to
illuminate the experience they are reconstructing in their interviews.
A conventional expectation participants have is that researchers use
quotations from interviews. But in reporting on in-depth interviewing,
researchers include lengthy excerpts from interview transcripts rather than
AFFIRMING INFORMED CONSENT 59
short quotations. As an element of informed consent, participants have the
right to know how extensively the interviewer might use the data from his
or her interview.
Possible Uses of Interview Data
I always suggest to doctoral candidates that they cast the widest net
they think possible in outlining the various uses they will make of informa-
tion collected. On first instinct, many students limit the intended use to
their dissertation. This means that if they later decide to publish something
from their dissertation, or to base a presentation for a conference on their
research, they will then be obligated to go back to their participants to
seek additional permission to use the material in ways not originally listed
in the consent form.
Remuneration
A major issue is whether the participant can expect any remuneration
for the interviews. Such remuneration could range from pay on a per-
interview basis to the promise that if the interviews lead to commercial
publication, the participant would have the right to some proportion of
the royalties. The issue is a complicated one. Anything more than a token
payment would seriously threaten to bias the potential participants' moti-
vation for taking part in the study. On the other hand, some researchers
see interviewers as potentially expropriating the words of the participants
for their own uses in an exploitative manner (Patai, 1987).Establishing an
equitable percentage of royalties to allocate to a participant, given all the
hours of work that go into an interview study before and after the actual
interview, is complicated. Except in the case of a best seller, a percentage
of royalties may not make much financial sense.
In the studies I have conducted, I have not offered remuneration to
the participants. At the conclusion of an interview, I normally present a
token of my appreciation. I think there are other levels of reciprocity that
occur in the interview process that can substitute for financial remunera-
tion. Participants have told me and my research associates that the occa-
sion of their interview was the first time anybody had ever sat down to
talk about their work with them. Participants have said that they appreci-
ated being listened to and that participating in the interviews was an
important experience for them.
Each interviewer has to figure out for him- or herself the issue of
remuneration. Whatever he or she decides should be explicit in the written
consent form. It should state clearly either that the participant is agreeing

60 INTERVIEWING AS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AFFIRMING INFORMED CONSENT 61
not to make any financial claim upon the interviewer or what the basis of
the remuneration will be. Inequity and certainly discomfort are more
likely to arise from an unclear position about the issue of money than from
a clear decision either to remunerate or not. The principle should be to
give the participant the opportunity to join or not to join the study on the
basis of explicit information.
7. SPECIAL CONDITIONSFOR CHILDREN
If participants have not attained the legal age of consent to treatments
or procedures involved in research (age 18 in most jurisdictions), inter-
viewers must obtain the informed consent of a parent or legal guardian. If
appropriate, researchers should see the "assent" of the child, but must seek
the "permission" of a parent or guardian. In cases with "greater than
minimal risk and little direct benefit to the participant, both parents and
each guardian must give permission (Protection of Human Subjects, 1996,
$5 46.402 & 46.408).
THE COMPLEXITIESOF AFFIRMINGWRITTEN CONSENT
When guidelines for seeking informed consent were issued in the
1960s and 1970s by federal agencies, many researchers saw the benefits,
but some felt that the costs outweighed them. Experiepced social scientists
questioned many facets of informed written consent, especially for partici-
pant observation settings that may be fluid, unfixed, and therefore diffi-
cult ones in which to seek explicit consent (Thorne, 1980).
In a response to the first edition of this book, sociologist Kathy Char-
maz commented on the complexity of the informed consent process. She
thought what I had written about informed consent was excellent in the
case of interviewing professionals; but when interviewing working-class
participants, she had found that the informed consent form causes many
to "feel uncomfortable and sets a suspicious tone to the interview" (K.
Charmaz, personal communication, March 5, 1992).
In further discussion of the issue, Charmaz (personal communication,
March 23 & 30, 1997) indicated that at times in her research, despite her
attempts to use a form that was short, clear, and nonbureaucratic, the
process of asking the participant to sign the form could contribute to
establishing a sense of authority and dominance in the interviewing rela-
tionship. I recognize that feeling in my own work. When a participant
signs the written consent form, I feel a sense of having gotten what I
needed to proceed and a small measure of control that comes with that
accomplishment.
Richard G. Mitchell, Jr.'s monograph, Secrecy and Fieldwork (1993),
also raises serious issues about the informed consent process. Mitchell cri-
tiques the easy substitution of the form of ethical procedure for the sub-
stance of ethical responsibility on the part of the researcher. That responsi-
bility, according to Mitchell, is to understand and report as fully as
possible the experience and the social world of our participants from their
perspective. Mitchell also points out that the requirement to seek informed
consent protects the weak and the powerful alike. He argues that in some
instances, such as his research on "survivalists," fieldwork carried out in
secret, with no pretense of seeking informed consent, is necessary if the
researcher hopes to gain the essential understanding of the participants he
or she may be studying.
Mitchell is provocative and useful in pointing out the subtexts and
complexities inherent in the process of informed consent. Doctoral candi-
dates with whom I have worked, for example, have indicated that the
approach to interviewing I describe in this book can be problematic when
interviewing elites and others in positions of power. (See the discussion of
interviewing elites in Chapter 7.) Such participants may either refuse to
sign the consent form or, having signed the consent form, take other steps
to avoid giving real insight into their perspectives.
On the other hand, one distinct advantage of the informed consent
process is that developing the written consent form requires that inter-
viewers think through the structure and processes of their study, making
them explicit not only to their participants but to themselves. Developing
a satisfactory written consent form requires that interviewers be clear
about their purposes, methods, and relationship with their participants.
In addition to allowing the potential participant to decide whether to
participate in the study on the basis of sufficient information, the informed
consent form serves as a contract of sorts, which can also protect inter-
viewers in cases of misunderstanding. My experience is that its clarity can
lead a researcher to a more equitable relationship with participants and to
the increased effectiveness that almost always flows from equity.
However, the ethical considerations of informed consent are complex.
There are settings and situations in which the process of seeking informed
consent is neutral and even positive for the interviewing relationship. I
think those are ones in which the power relationship between the partici-
pant and the interviewer is reasonably equitable. In these instances, issues
of age, gender, class, and race (see Chapter 7) and the sensitivities that
may be implicit in the topic of the interview do not immediately give the
interviewer or the participant a sense of dominance.

INTERVIEWING AS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
rmaz (prsonal communication, March 23, 1997)pointed out,
r, there are some situations and settings in which the necessity to
armed consent may hinder the interviewing process, at least ini-
uations in which participants feel vulnerable because of the
sensitive nature of the topic of the interview, they may hesitate to sign the
consent form. Participants who, for a range of reasons, have a distrust of
forms and formalistic language may balk at being asked to sign. Partici-
pants who feel the power relationship between them and the interviewer
is inequitable may feel uneasy and awkward when asked to review and
sign the form.
My experience is that the interviewer can deal with some of this type
of uneasiness by thoughtfulness and care in the process of going over the
form with the participant. In addition, the process of interviewing the
participant three times and developing and sustaining a relationship over
a period of time can relieve initial discomfort to some extent and can
assuage the suspicion that may have arisen at the time that the researcher
asked the participant to read and sign the informed consent form. In
circumstances in which the interviewer does not have the ability to build
a relationship over time, the informed consent process may be inhibiting.
While necessary, seekinginformed consent is not without its complexities.
It is designed to foster equity between the interviewer and the participant.
It may at times inhibit it. It is clear that the informed consent process is
only the beginning and not the end of researchers' ethical responsibilities
toward their participants and their research.
Technique Isn't ~verything,
But It Is a Lot
It is tempting to say that interviewing is an art, a reflection of the person-
ality of the interviewer, and cannot be taught. This line of thinking im-
plies that either you are good at it or you are not. But that is only half
true. Researchers can learn techniques and skills of interviewing. What
follows is a discussion of those skills as I have come to understand them
from my own experience of interviewing and that of others.
LISTEN MORE, TALK LESS
Listening is the most important skill in interviewing. The hardest
work for most interviewers is to keep quiet and to listen actively. Many
books about interviewing concentrate on the types of questionsthat inter-
viewers ask, but I want to start this chapter by talking about the type of
listening the interviewer must do.
Interviewers must listen on at least three levels. First, they must listen
to what the participant is saying. They must concentrate on the substance
to make sure that they understand it and to assess whether what they are
hearing is as detailed and complete as they would like it to be. They
must concentrate so that they internalize what participants say. Later,
interviewers' questions will often flow from this earlier listening.
On a second level, interviewers must listen for what George Steiner
(1978) calls "inner voice," as opposed to an outer, more public voice. An
outer, or public, voice always reflects an awareness of the audience. It is
not untrue; it is guarded. It is a voice that participants would use if they
were talking to an audience of 300 in an auditorium.
There is a language of the outer voice to which interviewers can
become sensitive. For example, whenever I hear participants talk about