Added: 09.05.2011 21:59
Linked challenges:
No linked challenges.
Linked visions:
No linked visions.

Can I trust my interviewee?

During the interview I felt that the answers of my respondent were not quite honest.

I purposed, that interview would be a most important form of qualitative data gathering for my thesis. The primary idea was to include into interviews some Emotional Intelligence test - Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory or MSCEI test. But the mentioned tests are only commercially available, so the pilot interview was decided to conduct without any test . The aim of the interview was to recognize a level of Emotional Intelligence in the context of the workplace. The theoretical framework of the interview was based on the Goleman´s five components of Emotional Intelligence at work.

The interviewee was an old-aged women, successful entrepreneur, my acquaintance.
The dialog was provided in friendship and positive atmosphere. However when my question touched upon self-regulation ability, I observed that my respondent answered not quite honestly. I felt it. Maybe it occurred because she wanted to seem better according to my opinion or her own.

It is very important for my research to understand the reasons and try to minimize untruth… Obviously, the big weakness of this pilot interview was a lot of closed questions. But only open questions give opportunity to recognize respondent´s feelings and opinions, observe her or his reflections. Anyway I am not sure, that even it will help to get truthful answers… Or it is best don´t use own feelings and intuition in researches and to apply only mental approaches for analyze?

Research question: Disadvantages of a interview

Can you solve this challenge? or

Solution(s) for this content
User image
On-line could give an edge to trusting the interviewee. Friendliness and communication could change the podium.

Would you like to comment?

Log in or Sign up

Comments

(12 May 2011)
The last question in the challenge description is a very important and essential methodological question indeed. Perhaps, its not either/or but on what grounds and to what extent each of the two ways to acquire information and produce knowledge are trusthworthy and convincing. It's also a question about whom you need to convince. Let's continue to explore the question. Ari