Collection of short essays

22 September 2024 shrese Articles 0

A reflective memo on prenatal screening

This reflective memo is based on an interview, about the screening of genetic diseases on fetuses, conducted with my friend Cris1. It describes the method undertaken, the collection and analysis of the data and reflects on the process of the interview and the methodological implications it holds. After some elements on reflexivity and an example of what the interview data can tell us about the social world, I will address some of the “challenges for interview researchers” implied by my approach: giving importance to the set up of the interview, the representation of data and my active contribution as interviewer (Potter and Hepburn 2012).

Epistemological reflexivity

Interviews have been described as “conversations with a purpose” (Burgess 1984 cited in Mason 2002, p.62) and they are one of the main generation technique of qualitative data in social sciences (Edwards and Holland 2013), giving first hand accounts on people’s perceptions and beliefs, their sense making activities or their experiences. Scholars suggested the criteria of trustworthiness to evaluate qualitative research, assessing it through a commitment to transparency and reflexivity (personal and epistemological) in the collection, analysis and communication of data (Bryman 2012; Willig 2013).

Recognizing the active role that people play in constructing realities, the main theory informing the method and analysis of my interview is constructionism (Roulston 2014). I conducted a short unstructured interview (see Transcript) with a skeletal topic guide related to my research: how does Cris account and make sense of the practice of genetic testing on fetuses during pregnancy? Acknowledging that interviews are situated moments of co-production of knowledge through interactions (Rapley 2010), data was generated with a cooperative approach.

Data analysis

After a moment of knowledge checking and co-learning, the conversation narrows down on a specific situation, the genetic testing of fetuses for Down’s syndrome. Using very strong language (“genocide”, Transcript: Line 108) while distancing herself from possible confusion with a pro-life standpoint (118), Cris expresses deep concerns about the justification and the impact of routinised screening of Down’s syndrome on society (190). Showing a somehow specialised knowledge (“inclusive”, “neurodiverse”), Cris’s account can be traced back to scholarly identified worries about the medicalization of pregnancy and childhood, the geneticization of health and contemporary new forms of eugenics (Kerr and Shakespeare 2002). Acknowledging that technologies always-already embed social values (Winner 1980), Cris’s discourse attempts to veer reproductive technologies towards a frame of social justice.

The set up

The interview was part of a university coursework. The interviewee (Cris, a fellow student) was recruited on the basis of availability and friendship. The recruitment was reciprocal, we each acted as interviewee for the other person. Therefore, the context was friendly and relaxed and the aim of the interview was clear: answering questions to help for a course assignment.

Both interviews occurred immediately one after the other, I was an interviewee first. This means that the recording device (a smartphone) was already set up for my interview, but also that I had to swiftly swap footing, which was not easy. Cris recognised this (1) and her care, empathy and attention shows the high level of rapport already established and the conviviality of the interaction (Berg and Nowicka 2019).

The recruiting category is established early on: member of the “general public” who is “not a specialist” and asked to give their “own opinion”, i.e., not representing any social group (16-27).

The unstructuredness of the interview, acknowledged quickly (16), allows me to include Cris into the decision over the specific topic of discussion (3, 7-8). This initial structuring of the interview reflects the acknowledgment that this topic could be sensitive, sets up the cooperative nature of the interaction (Rapley 2010) and establishes the “understanding of the task” (17-18, Potter and Hepburn 2012, p.5). The transparency about unstructuredness is also a first venture into self-disclosure that may encourage the generation of more meaningful, relevant and usable data (Rapley 2010).

My active role

By including my own voice in the interview transcript, as well as representational forms like prompts or encouragements (“Umm”, “Okay”), I recognize the “interactional production of interviews” as well as my active role in shaping the conversation and the generation of data (Potter and Hepburn 2012, p.3). Examples include:

  • Prompts:
    • I repeat the most significant word that Cris said in her previous answer (97, 144), not in an interrogative way but in an affirmative way: to reinforce and underline its strong meaning or to invite for an elaboration of the answer.
  • Questions (see Bryman 2012):
    • Direct (53).
    • Interpreting: where I propose a phrasing to confirm the meaning of the answer just given (81-85).
    • Specifying: where I ask for a clarification of the answer (132).
    • Follow up: where I follow on themes (“information”) raised by Cris herself (243).
    • Structuring: where I announce new directions in the interview (125).
  • Co-learning:
    • At times, Cris became the interviewer (33-38).

Footings, stakes and interests

Cris adopts different footings along the interview, she embodies “several subjects” (Rapley 2010, p.29):

  • as a member of the recruiting category, where she has to demonstrate her “competence” as an interviewee (Rapley 2010, p.27). This footing is most visible when she is doubting her competency (33), apologising for her lack of knowledge (when this should be an attribute of the category) because she perceives it as an impediment to give her opinion.
  • as a putative mother (214-215), where she explains what she would or would not do in contrast to other mothers.
  • as a social justice advocate who has stakes and interests, and a very specific vision of what the world should be (249-278).

As interviewer, I also display my own stakes and interests. For example, some of my reactions show that I am treating what Cris says as already loaded and meaningful (110) or as already valuable for the analysis (212).

Personal reflexivity

During the interview, I reveal, by agreeing with Cris’s previous statements, some of the values and social agendas that inform my research (125). This could have various consequences, such as putting pressure on Cris to give answers that would align with my views or increase the risk of circularity of the analysis, where I would simply confirm pre-existing assumptions. However, this transparency may also favour the conviviality of the interview and encourage more self-disclosure from Cris (Rapley 2010).

Conclusion

Reflecting on the challenges to researchers doing interviews, this memo has highlighted how the choice of a constructionist and cooperative method of interviewing implied the need to acknowledge the interactional nature of interviews and to adopt a reflexive stance in the analysis.

References

  • Berg, M.L. and Nowicka, M. 2019. Studying diversity, migration and urban multiculture: convivial tools for research and practice. London: UCL Press.
  • Bryman, A. 2012. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Edwards, R. and Holland, J. 2013. What is qualitative interviewing? London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Kerr, A. and Shakespeare, T. 2002. Genetic politics: from eugenics to genome. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.
  • Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
  • Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. 2012. Eight Challenges for Interview Researchers. In: Gubrium, J., Holstein, J., Marvasti, A., and McKinney, K. eds. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. Available at: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/handbook-of-interview-research-2e [Accessed: 25 February 2024].
  • Rapley, T. 2010. Interviews. In: Seale, C., Gobo, G., and Gubrium, J. F. eds. Qualitative research practice. Repr. London: SAGE.
  • Roulston. 2014. Analysing Interviews. In: Flick, U. ed. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications, Inc. Available at: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-data-analysis [Accessed: 25 February 2024].
  • Willig, C. 2013. Introducing qualitative research in psychology. 3rd ed. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.
  • Winner, L. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? 109(1), pp. 121–136.

1 Her name was changed to ensure anonymity.