The ethics of an interview

This week, I conducted 3 out of the (now) 6 interviews, and I am becoming more confident with each one. As I mentioned in my last blog, I believed that experience and preparation would help - and I was right! I still have a long way to go, so I still wouldn't call myself 'experienced'.

What were my ethical considerations? Tell me yours too...

As I reflected on these interviews, I can see how ethics play more of a role than I originally realised, and I took part in an online discussion on Tuesday where the focus was on the ethics of the interview process, which looked at the many considerations when planning an interview - some that I did do, some that I didn't do, and some that I did without knowing.

Considering ethics during a requisition...

Firstly, there is the process of asking people to take part; I reached out to many different people (friends, colleagues, associates, and strangers) but I always considered how my actions and words may affect them and how they may feel when the request came in; would they would feel pressured to participate? I tried to understand their personal, cultural and professional circumstances before reaching out and what factors might influence their decision to accept, reject or ignore my request. People can lead busy lives where they may not have time, they might not be interested in the inquiry topic, or they might feel that it isn't appropriate to be taking part. Particularly during this unprecedented time, our feelings and self-esteem can be greatly diminished and a project like this might exacerbate their mental health. That is why it is important to recognise my own privilege and how this may differ from other people, especially at a time like this, so I can learn to understand their situation and use appropriate ethical procedures when interacting with them.

Recognising privilege

Recognising one's own privilege was mentioned in the group discussion this week but it was also touched on by the participants during the interviews. It was interesting to discover how theatre critics might be surviving financially in this current economic climate, and it seems that some are more privileged than others, for example there are very few arts journalists who are contracted to a publication, which would be their primary source of income; a lot of writers are freelance workers and will supplement their writing with other forms of work. This shows there is an imbalance in the industry but shouldn't diminish the work of the freelancers. This realisation encouraged me to look at my own privilege and understand that I am lucky to be in a secure job and receiving my usual salary, so it would not be ethical to flaunt this in anyway and I should endeavour to be cautious and to show empathy when speaking to other industry workers in case they are struggling. To some degree, I was already taking this into consideration when reaching out to participants, which can be seen through the ethical procedures that I followed. 

Ethical procedures

For each case, I chose to use a diplomatic approach catered to that individual to help alleviate any pressure of taking part - this was conducted through the method of reaching out (usually email), and the discourse that I chose, as well as refraining from any repeated contact if they didn't reply. Additionally, for the first interview, I offered to use Skype in order to conduct the interview and the participant replied with their telephone number, which I interpreted this as their way of saying 'no' to Skype and a telephone interview would be their preferred means of contact; therefore, I accepted this and carried out the interview over the telephone. As this was my first interview, it actually provided an easy introduction to the interviews and I believe that I didn't feel as under pressure in comparison to speaking face-to-face or over Skype, and in this case, it proved beneficial to my own learning and experience.

I continued the method of diplomatic speech in the discourse I used in the interviews, ensuring that I didn't push any questions that a participant seemed unwilling to answer. This procedure was derived from the consideration that I wanted to establish a comfortable environment for each participant. Additionally, I had initially stated that the interviews would last 30-45 minutes each but, so far, all 3 interviews have reached an hour. I can see that it is essential to ask the participants (at the 30 and 45-minute mark) if they are willing to carry on, or if they needed/wanted to stop for any reason. This ethical procedure provided an opportunity that they may not have had the confidence or moment to say.

Ethics came into practice when choosing the questions for each participant and I was mindful that I didn't ask any sensitive questions that might make the participant uncomfortable, for example I have an interview with a performer next week and they asked if any other reviews or questions would be about about specific times in their career. This is important to consider as the participant's mental health during the interview is one of the most important areas to protect; it is crucial not to put the participant under any sort of stress.

I am also aware of how questions can show bias or subtly lead the participant to answer in a particular way. I tried to ask questions that invited an open response and not to specifically mention certain organisations or emotions when referring to the topic; I wanted them to feel that they could answer truthfully with no preconceived ideas of what I wanted them to say. Of course, things change in the moment and I occasionally found myself asking direct questions, such as "Do you feel..." or "Have you ever...", which usually prompts a 'yes' or a 'no' response. There were also times where I wanted to respond to the participant to show my interest and encourage them to talk more, which sometimes revealed my own opinions and feelings towards the subject. I believe that I should practice different responses that will avoid doing this in future.

Interviews and questions have another pitfall, which is influence. This is quite significant to this inquiry topic, especially as just talking about reviews can change the way theatregoers, in particular, will perceive them. I wanted to avoid any sort of bias from my questions or the reviews that I showed them, but it is a difficult process to control; I tried to maintain a level of equality throughout my questions that was open to both sides of every argument/question that I asked. I asked questions such as "Do you think some sources of reviews can be more of less trustworthy than others?" and "What are your usual processes for deciding which sources of reviews to read as opposed to others that might be available?"I am confident that this sufficient to remove any sort of influence from the questions... however, I should aim to stop with responses such as "I know what you mean" or "I agree".

How can ethics of an interview help me in practice?

This is probably the longest blog that i have written, and there is much more to discuss about ethics. It is an endlessly fascinating subject that I am learning more an more about each time that I reflect, but how can all of this help me in my practice? Well, I will be blogging about this next week...