 |
Box 14. 1 power within interviews
|
|
|
|
BOX 14. 1 POWER WITHIN INTERVIEWS
The power of the interviewer:
· Establishes the meeting
· Sets the boundaries of the topic
• Asks or does not ask certain questions
• Interprets the interview
• Creates a final ‘truth’ of collated data.
The power of the interviewee:
· Accepts the meeting
· Shifts the discussion of the topic
• Emphasizes certain answers
• Withholds information
• Questions the interviewer
• Withdraws from the interview.
As Box 14. 1 implies, most of the power within interviews is held by the interviewer. Many researchers, especially those interested in critical, feminist or decolonizing methodologies, are subsequently keen to explore how research can be conducted in ways that reduce power imbalances (Clough and Nutbrown, 2002; Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2013; Smith, 2003). One way that this might be done is by avoiding traditional ‘question-and-answer’ interviews (in which the interviewer sets the order of questions in their particular language) and, instead, taking a narrative approach that allows the interviewee to tell their story in their own words (Hollway and Jefferson, 2000). As Box 14. 2 illustrates, a storytelling approach changes the dynamics of how research is done and, in so doing, brings rich data.
 |
Individual stories will always be mediated and they can lack impartiality. Yet, by collating personal narratives, researchers demonstrate shared experiences and identi- ties, and may subsequently create new social truths.
Notwithstanding the benefits of this approach, the storytelling approach requires researcher sensitivity, particularly in terms of how stories are subsequently repre- sented and used. The stories ‘belong’ to interviewees and, if used carelessly, researchers can increase exclusion, alienation or damage for tellers. Further, the power of researchers to rewrite stories for our own ends illustrates privilege. There is a question, then, of how we can make interview data accessible, a point intensi- fied by the unequal access to academic journals and resources (Skeggs, 2002; Stanley, 2012).
INTERVIEWING VICTIMS OF STATE VIOLENCE
This chapter considers my experience of interviewing those victimized by state workers and their representatives. As a critical criminologist, I want my research to expose experiential accounts of state violence, ones that might challenge our common-sense assumptions about who commits violence and who is victimized by it. In this chapter, state violence relates to the violence and harm suffered by those held as children within state institutions. I also hope to challenge state denials and impunity, by exposing state harms and calling for redress as well as shifts in the treatment of victims. Box 14. 3 identifies the benefits of taking a critical approach in this area.
 | |||
 | |||
|
|
|
As shown in Box 14. 3, a critical approach allows a researcher to uncover how state violence is employed, discussed, experienced and challenged. It brings an opportu- nity to expose alternative voices on issues that are commonly silenced.
In recent years, over a thousand New Zealanders have approached legal firms and official agencies with complaints about their abuse in ‘state care’, mainly from the 1950s to the late 1980s. My project connected with 105 claimants. Most (n = 91) had been removed from families due to their experiences of abuse or neglect, while under half (n = 47) had begun to get into trouble, such as by truanting or engaging in petty theft. Removed at an average age of 10 years, most claimants spent many years in state care. Box 14. 4 contains a summary of the abuse and its impact on claimants.
 |
|
|
|
