DOCUMENT RESUME ED 360 842 FL 021 419 AUTHOR Parkinson, Brian TITLE Can Applied Linguists Do Ethnographic Interviews? REPORT NO ISSN-0959-2253 PUB DATE 93 NOTE 16p.; For serial publication in which this paper appears, see FL 021 410. PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) Journal Articles (080) JOURNAL CIT Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics; v4 p96-109 1993 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Applied Linguistics; *Ethnography; Foreign Countries; French; *Interviews; Italian; Research Methodology; Second Language Learning; Statistical Analysis ABSTRACT Eight subjects who had used "study packs" in their learning of French and Italian were interviewed by colleagues of the teachers who wrote them. This article presents an analysis of attempts at an ethnographic interviewing strategy, entailing an open-ended approach and adoption of an 'outsider' role. A coding system designed to measure 'ethnographicity,' with sample codings and descriptive statistics, is presented, together with subjective analyses of sample interviews. The surprising and highly provisional conclusion is that insider interviews can sometimes achieve similar results to ethnographers, but by rather different means. Contains 4 references. (Author) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** 1 CAN APPLIED LINGUISTS DO ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEWS? BRIAN PARKINSON (IALS) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE Office ot Educational Research and Improvement THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION BY CENTER (ERIC) 9.Pgra document has been reproduced as received from Me person or organization Originating at o/t) ?AR Jte 0 Minor changes Piave been made to improve rSHOduction oualrty points°, view or opinions stated in this docu . merit do not nOteliSatity represent official TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES OERI volution or policy INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." CAN APPLIED LINGUISTS DO ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEWS? Brian Parkinson (IALS) Abstract Eight subjects who had used 'study pack? in their learning of French and Italian were interviewed by colleagues of the teachers who wrote them. This article presents, not the findings of the interviews, but an analysis of attempts at an 'ethnographic' interviewing strategy, entailing inter alia an open-ended approach and adoption of an to role. coding A designed 'outsider' measure system 'ethnographicity', with sample codings and descriptive statistics, is presented, together with subjective analyses of sample interviews. The surprising and highly provisional conclusion is that 'insider' interviewers can sometimes achieve similar results to ethnographers, but by rather different means. I. Introduction This article is one product of a research and development project at IALS concerned with distance learning study packs for intermediate students of French and Italian. The other products are the study packs themselves, in French (Mulphin .1991) and Italian (Dawson and Peyronel 1991), and a summary - not intended for publication - of learners' attitudes to these materials and to more general issues of distance learning This article is based on the same interviews as and self-study (Howard 1992). Howard's summary, but it deals, not with primary research findings on learner attitude etc., but with secondary or 'meta-research' issues, explained further below, concerning interviewer behaviour and the subjects' perception of the interviewers. The study packs consisted of an audio-tape with several foreign-language interviews and a written booklet with a variety of exercises based on this material plus some reading-based exercises. They were supported by a marking service: students could send in and receive correction and feedback on written exercises, and also (though this They also filled in a 'diary was rarely done in practice) a taped oral composition. page' describing when, where and how they used the materials. Materials and feedback were free to the students, as this was a pilot version to be revised in the light of their comments and performance. Thc materials were written It was not pure from January to June 1991 and piloted from April to August 1991. 0 'distance learning' as many students continued to come to classes, but their distance work was not normally discussed in class, only written feedback being given in Other students were not attending class during the pilot period. envelopes. A telephone tutoring service was offered to supplement written feedback but was scarcely used. EDINBURGH WORKING PAPERS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS, number 4 (1993) ISSN 4959-2253 Evaluation of the pilot was by two kinds of interview, 'short interviews' and 'long interviews': assignment of students to each type was random as far as possible but constrained by student availability for long interviews. All interviews were in English. Intended length of the short interviews was about 10 to 15 minutes, long interviews 45 to 60 minutes, but this varied in practice and some 'short' interviews were longer than some 'long' ones. The short interviews were conducted by the French/Italian teachers who wrote the material and were intended to provide formative information for any necessary revision; the long interviews were conducted by Ron Howard in the role of 'distance learning coordinator' and Brian Parkinson in the role of 'project research adviser', and were intended to b broadly 'ethnographic', to illuminate more general issues of how distance learning materiais are perceived and used by students. It was hoped that by presenting ourselves (RH/BP) as 'outsiders' - we were not the writers, though we had advised them we would get an, in some sense, truer picture of such matters. 2. The ethnographic interview The ethnographic interview (see e.g. Spradley 1979) is intended as a solution to a well-known methodological problem of interviewing: that the interviewers set the agenda, the interviewees tell them what they think they want to hear, and so there is no real insight into the life-world of the interviewees. Ethnographic interviewers try to treat their subjects as teachers and themselves as learners, thus gaining insight into the subjects' life-world. We are not professional ethnographers, our previous experience of ethnography was very limited (BP) or none (RH), and full-scale ethnography is not possible in a single interview, so the approach described below is very much a 'diluted' version of that advocated by Spradley. (It was diluted even further for RH as he had a specific conscious agenda in his role as distance-learning coordinator. I had no conscious but quite agenda, an unconscious possibly interviewer? like one.) any - - Nevertheless, we both tried to direct the interview along generally ethnographic lines, prAcularly in its early stages. The extent of our success is the main topic of this article. The ethnographic approach, as we interpreted it and planned to implement it, was as follows: (i) We would stress that we were not membcrs of the course-writing team, and had only a limited knowledge of the course materials. The interviewees were to treat us as completely ignorant, and teach us, as they would a complete outsider (e.g. a newspaper reporter), about the materials and how they had used them. (ii) We did not, except incidentally, want specific information on how to revise these study packs. Rather, we were interested in the general idea of distance learning of languages and 'what it means to you'. (iii) We did not have a pre-set schedule of questions, which we had to get through. Instead, we would encourage them to 'set your own agenda' and say whatever they considered worth saying about the materials. 97 We would be intetested to hear (iv) We did, however, have certain guidelines. about: objectives their language learning in general, including (a) packs, within that learning the place of distance learning, and of the study (b) well as a reaction to them a description of the materials as (c) otherwise, of each perception of the intended purpose, and success or (d) materials - they were to say wha, general kind of element or activity in the the different kinds were. of questions we would try to Where we - especially RH had a specific 'agenda' (v) and to keep the first and longer part keep these to the end of the interview, maximally 'ethnographic'. 3. The methodological problem (and others, going back to Malinowski 1922) In the examples described by Spradley interviewers have a lot to learn - they genuinely ethnography is possible because the of the community studied. do not know about the terminology and customs do not know how ordinary people learn We too have a lot to learn - we genuinely because we are in danger of being languages - but our task is more difficult in a way Even if not intimately 'experts'. perceived, and even of perceiving ourselves, as professionals in the field: the acquainted with the materials being discussed, we are if we try to disclaim or minimise our interviewees are likely to know this, and perceived as, and to feel, dishonest, thus experience and expertise we are likely to be cannot do ethnographic interviews distortMg the interview. Does this mean that one Or is there in practice no problem, with in an area close to one's own specialisation? outside the field, and interviewers able interviewees able to talk exactly as to someone to adopt a 'naïve' perspective? from such a slender empirical base: I I did not expect to answer such a big question simple statistics and insights which hoped merely to offer some illuminative examples, might help future workers in this area. 4. Data and data analysis eight 'long interviews' (see above), four The data consists of the transcripts of conducted by RH and four by 13P. I decided to analyse these in the following way: of utterance which I considered To generate a list of numbered categories (i) adopting an ethnographic relevant to the question of whether the interviewer was other perspective, and perspective, a language expert perspective, or some outsider or in some other whether the interviewee was perceiving him as expert, all utterances but only those, probably a way. The system would not categorise minority, relevant to this issue. its To test the reliability of these categories by asking colleagues from outside the (ii) project to assign a random sample of utterances to one (or none) of them. To generate a profile of each of the eight interviews by coding the appearance of (iii) each of the numbered categories in each turn of the interview. (iv) To record my own subjective impressions, and if possible also colleagues' impressions, of the degree of 'ethnographicity' of each interview, and to compare these with the picture given by the numbered profile. To attempt generalisations on the factors which appear to (v) influence the ethnographicity of an interview, and on how far such information is recoverable from interview data. far from complete and the results below are partial and This programme is provisional. In particular, no formal reliability trials have yet occurred. 5. Coding system and examples (Numbers in examples refer to interviews, pages, turns: thus 1, 7. 5 = interview I , page 7, turn 5. The original categories have been renumbered, and in some cases collapsed, for this presentation.) 5.1 'A' codings These are categories of interviewer utterance or part-utterance which seem conducive, or intended as conducive, to the interview proceeding along ethnographic lines. Al Disclaiming or minimising personal experience of language learning "... what I'm particularly interested in is to try and find out a little bit about what it's like to learn a language by itself. This is actually something I've never attempted to do so I'm completely ignorant ..." (I, 1, 1) A2 Disclaiming or minimising knowledge of project "Now it's very important to treat me as completely ignorant, to In fact I assume that I know nothing at all about these materials. don't know a lot." (4, 1, I) A3 Asking for information about materials "Is there a key for this bit?" (5, 6, 6) A4 Referring to and inviting expansion of respondent's written comments "And you mostly seem to have studied in periods of between half an hour and one and a half hours ... Do you find this an ideal time? (4. 8, 4 and 4, 8, 6). 6 99 A5 Asking for information on foreign language (vocabulary) in materials "What's 'elenco', 'elenco'?" (7, 12, 8) A6 Giving respondent control over course of interview It's really up w you to say "There's no fixed list of questions. whatever you think important." (3, 1, I) A7 Sympathetic echoing Em ... you said you found it difficult to OK. Right. "Mmhm. organise time to do homework for the normal ... normal classes?" (2. 6, 4) separately defined in this (5 other, infrequent 'A' categories (A8 to Al2) are not other') report, and are conflated in the table (section 7) as 'A 5.2 'B' codings which seem to indicate These are categories of interviewer utterance or part-utterance from the ethnographic pattern. an (intentional or unintentional) deviation B1 Identifying self with materials writers "Well, the aim is to have six units altogether, and if you can appreciate that one took quite a lot of (time?'" (1. 10, 16) of materials B2 Revealing knowledge of or views on content and purpose you." (1, "It wasn't intended to be a test at all. No. It was to help 4, 16) questions in materials B3 Offering to interpret materials or give answers to decide was "On the other hand maybe all they wanted you to 10, 14) whether he was a professional man or 1...1 a labourer." (5, language teacher B4 Revealing or emphasising own knowledge/experience as (7 13, 2) "Now I teach English you see and I do something similar" than as interviewer-to- 35 Encouraging the interlocutor, more as teacher-to-learner interv iewee "As you say with unit 2, 3 and 4 of course you'll know next time." (1, 4, 6) questions, including 36 (Giving impression of) going thiough a checklist of pre-set follow-ups ... ?" "And what did you think of the format? The differem colours (3, 7. 15) B7 Leading questions "So sometimes your predictions were right and sometimes they were wrong but even when they were wrong they didn't stop you from learning? (3, 3, 2) B8 Completing respondent's unfinished utterances "No, no, no, I, I, I ... was listening ..." R "You were listening specifically to those pros and cons." (1, 8. 1 and I. 8, 2) B9 Imposing own structure on interview "We'll come back to reading later on, but in the listening 1.4 the first thing you do then is these predictions?" (3, 4, 10) (4 other, infrequent 'B' categories (B10 to B13) are not separately defined in this report, and are conflated in the table as 'B other'.) 5.3 'C'. codlings These are categories of respondent utterance or part-utterance which seem to indicate acceptance of (or accidental compliance with) an ethnograph:c pattern for the interview, or at least some aspect of this. Cl Teaching the interviewer about the materials "Andrea uses different impersonal forms and (you] listen to the tape and find similar ones." (7, 14, I) Informing the interviewer about own performance on the materials (without C2 persist:nt self-deprecation - cf. D3) I had no problem with that one at "No, I understood the statement. all." (7, 12, 3) C3 Criticism of materials It had a bad echo." (4. I. 2) "This particular one had a fault in it. C4 Suggestions for improving materials or methods "The tendency was to look for one of these answers 1...1 whereas it was a paraphrase of the answer (...] Perhaps ... the question should say 'It may not be the exact answer'." (3, 11, 8 and 3, 11, 10) C5 Teaching the interviewer a point of language (vocabulary) 101 11) 'Attenuare' mea.7s to extenuate basicali5) ..." (7, 12, "To box. of own learning habits), Introducing a new topic (usually some aspect C6 unprompted or in response to open question course] two months "Interestingly enough, I got a [commercial tape months." (1, 13, 13) [ago] [..] you're none the wiser, after three C7 Contradicting interviewer assumption it?" "Haif listening and half reading and writing was and 4, 4, 1) "I think it was more listening" (4, 3, 8 R CIO) are not separately defined in this (3 other, infrequent 'C' categories (C8 to 'C other.) report, and are conflated in the table as 5.4 'D' codings pail-utterance which seem to indicate These are categories of respondent utterance or ethnographic pattern for the interview, or failure to perceive or non-acceptance of an at least some aspect of this. similar Use of 'you' or 'your' to refer to the materials or DI 9) 3, good. (1, "I think it was your ... eh ... introduction was very and statements of interview Ignoring interviewer's professions of ignorance D2 when of 'what I liked/disliked about materials' purpose by answering solely in terms asked to describe them I what the study packages are? "Could you tell me then first of all roughly find in them, what you do with them?" mean what kinds of things you (4, I, I and 4, 1, 2) "Em ... I found it excellent ..." R performance, i.e. assertions to the effect D3 Extreme self-deprecation in describing that 'materials are wonderful, 1 am stupid' couldn't have risked my "It's a very good introduction [...] I 1 was not good at thoughts [...1 I found it d(fficult to talk [...) package good [...] writing down correctly [4 I really felt the study bit panicky ... 1 don't Your introduction was very good [...) 1 got a of got a bit panicky 1.4 think 1 understood the question [...1 1 sort it was goad practice." But it was good ... I was panicking [...] 2-4) (Spread over several turns, interview 1, pages not separately defined in this (3 other, infrequent 'D' categories (D4 to D6) are 'D other'.) report, and are conflated in the table as 9 102 6. $ampIe endings To give a flavour of the analysis, I now give complete sequential codings on two interviews, those discussed in section 8. Complete turns without any A/B/C/D categories are coded 'I' for interviewer turns, 'R' for respondent turns: this means that nothing obviously 'ethnographic' or 'unethnographic' occurred. Commas separate turns, dashes separa e multiple codings within one turn. Page numbers, originally included to assist checking, are retained to give some idea of equal intervals, as turn length varies greatly. Interview I Al, C7, A7, R, A7, C6-DI-C6, A4, C8, B13, C6, A7, C6-C6-C6, (page 2) C4, A7, C4-C6, Al-A3, Cl, A8, D3, A2, R. I. R, I, R, I, C2, A7, (page 3) R, BIO, R, I, R. A4, R. B11, DI-D3, B3, DI-D3-D3, I, D3, B3, C2, Al, D3, A7, (page 4) C3. B8, C3, A9, D3, 135, D3, A7, R, B12, D4, I, D3, A7, R, B2, (page 5) C4, A7, C4. A7, R, I, R, I, DI, C6, I, R, I, R, I, R, I, R, A6, R. (page 6) I, C6, B8. R. A6, D5, A6, CI, A3, D3, I, R, A6, C2, I, (page 7) CI, A10, C2, A10, C2, I, C2-C2-D3. C2, A10, R. A10, (page 8) C7, B8, R, I, D3, C2, I. R, B3. C2, A7, C2, I. C2, A7, (page 9) C2, AT, C2, A7, CI, A7, C2, A7, C2, A7, C2, I. R. I, R. I, R. A6, (page 10) C1-C2, B5, C2, I, C6, R, I, R, I, B2, D3, I, DI, BI, DI-D3, (page 11) B1, R. I, C2-D6, I, C9, I, C9, I. R, 136, C6, (page 12) B6, R, I, R, B12, C3, B1, R, I, R. I, R, 136, C6, 1, C6, 84, R. I, R, A7, (page 13) R. B6, C6-C6, Al. R. 116, It, I. C6. B6, It, 86, II, B6, C6, A7, (page 14) C6-C6-C6, B1, R. B6, R, I, R, B6, R. 136, R. Bl, (page 15) It, B6, C6, I, R, 86, R. I, R. B5, R, B1, DI, I, R, I, R, (page 16) B6, R. I, R, I, R. B7, R, B7. Dl. Interview 7 I, R, I, R, A2, (page 2) Cl-C2-C8-C2, I, C6, (page 3) A3, C2, I, R, I, C3-D1, A9- B12, R, I, C3, A6, (page 4) R, I, R, A4, R, A4, R, I, R, (page 5) I, C2. 1, (inaudible section), (page 6) C2, Al. C2, I. It, I, R, A4, C3 C3, I, C3, I, (page 7) R, 1, R, A4, 12, A4, C2, I, R, (page 8) B7, C2, I, R. I, C2 A6, It, I. C2, I. C2, I, (page 9) It, A3, CI, I, C2, I. C2, B7, C7, I, R, A3, C I, R, B7, R, A3, , (page10) CI, A3, CI, I, CI, I, CI-C2, I, R, I. (page 11) CI -C2, I. C2. B2, C2, I. 11, I, R, I, it, I, CI, I, C2, I, (page 12) C2-C1, B7, C7-C2, I. C2, I. C2, A5. CS, A5, CS, AS, CS, I, R., 83, (page 13) R, B3-B4, R, B3, It, B3, R, B3, R, A7, R, 133, C6, I, C6. I. R, A3, (page 14) CI-C2, I. R. 87. R, 1, C2. A3, CI, A3, CI, 1, CI, I. R, I, R, I, CI-C2, I, C2, (page 15) I, C6-C4, A3, C6, A3, C6, I, CI -C2, AS, (page 16) CS, AS, C5-CI-C2, A3, CI, A3, Cl, 1, C2, I, R. I, R, I. (page 17) CI, I, 11, I, C1-C2, I, C4, A7, C4, A7, C4, I, (page 18) It, I, II, I, C2, I, CI, A6, R, 136, R. 86, R, I, R, I, R. 86, (page 19) R. B6, R, I. C4, 136, R, I, R. 1 0 103