On Sunday morning I made my way to Bethlehem to meet David (the project manager at IPCRI), Joanna and Valerie (two others working on the refugee/settler project) to discuss the assignment in greater depth and review proper interview techniques. Svi, one of David's superiors, was leading the session. One look at Svi and all I could think of was the school master Ichabod Crane from the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. He is the spitting image of the cartoon figure I remember watching as a kid and appears to be a very warm, playful and knowledgeable character.
He referred to two kinds of interviews, formal (where there is a set place and time) and informal (such as a street conversation you rush home to write down after the fact). There are also structured interviews (which adopt a questionnaire like form) and unstructured interviews (which are more guided discussions, though not too guided, within the width if your interests). We will be conducting formal and unstructured interviews to both refugees and settlers.
In conducting interviews we lie (in a very human sense) because essentially, we are inventing reality. Svi's biggest point was that there is no way we can understand what we are being told and the assumption of understanding is both the biggest mistake and danger. When we "assume to understand," we must ask anther set of questions aimed in this direction until the lie becomes clearer. Additionally, there is always an internal dialogue that exists (how much can I ask or do in this given context with this person to get the information I need without agitating the interviewee?).
Another point was when dealing with anything abstract or concrete for that matter, ask for examples. Everyone will say they "want peace." This means nothing. What is the "peace" they are referring to? Nothing is clear or obvious. When people are unable to give examples it becomes apparent how unclear their ideology actually is. If the interviewee doesn't supply a good example you can ask again, repeat their answer to make sure you understand, or give an example on your own (though this should be saved for last as it can produce a guided product), then move on. Above all, be kind, respectful, stick to ethical commitments (confidentiality, etc.), and be thankful for their time. Often, the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee is more important than the questions being asked. It is also important to be consistent in the interview process (how you open, etc.) to produce the same results, to be sensitive to language used, and to realize the length of an appropriate interview will depend on the cultural background of the interviewee. Always remember to write down the setting, how you think the interview went, and any other significant details to give the reader a better sense of what occurred.
The project itself is an IPCRI initiative to try to understand the priorities and needs of both Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlers by asking them questions about themselves and their perceptions of the future of the West Bank and the conflict. We define refugees as not only the Palestinians expelled in 1948, but their children and grandchildren as well (as oppose to considering only the individuals who were expelled themselves as refugees and not their descendants). This is because according to international law, descendants of refugees are taken in by the country that houses them. Since the Palestinians are refugees in their own state (being that Israel does not recognize Palestine and will not give citizenship to the refugees from 1948 or their descendants), this doesn't apply.
In many ways, we are searching for the unknown that can help us better identify what needs to happen to create a two state solution where both peoples are satisfied. From the information provided in the interviews, we hope to produce a policy paper and an academic study. We will need to make sure our interviewees know our goals from the start. As far as the structure is concerned, the interviews will consist of two parts. First, we will ask the list of questions we have composed (some personal and others a matter of opinion) and expect them to take an hour and a half or so to be discussed. Second, we will present around 10 options (give or take) for possible resolutions to the conflict and ask which ones are approved of and which are not in order to get a better perception of what people are willing to compromise on.
It can be expected that the approach of this study (such as the types of questions, order in which things are presented, etc.) will be slightly modified as we interview the first set of individuals and decipher what methods are beneficial and which are counterproductive. I'm excited to participate in a study from its consummation and observe all the various elements that contribute to its completion.
He referred to two kinds of interviews, formal (where there is a set place and time) and informal (such as a street conversation you rush home to write down after the fact). There are also structured interviews (which adopt a questionnaire like form) and unstructured interviews (which are more guided discussions, though not too guided, within the width if your interests). We will be conducting formal and unstructured interviews to both refugees and settlers.
In conducting interviews we lie (in a very human sense) because essentially, we are inventing reality. Svi's biggest point was that there is no way we can understand what we are being told and the assumption of understanding is both the biggest mistake and danger. When we "assume to understand," we must ask anther set of questions aimed in this direction until the lie becomes clearer. Additionally, there is always an internal dialogue that exists (how much can I ask or do in this given context with this person to get the information I need without agitating the interviewee?).
Another point was when dealing with anything abstract or concrete for that matter, ask for examples. Everyone will say they "want peace." This means nothing. What is the "peace" they are referring to? Nothing is clear or obvious. When people are unable to give examples it becomes apparent how unclear their ideology actually is. If the interviewee doesn't supply a good example you can ask again, repeat their answer to make sure you understand, or give an example on your own (though this should be saved for last as it can produce a guided product), then move on. Above all, be kind, respectful, stick to ethical commitments (confidentiality, etc.), and be thankful for their time. Often, the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee is more important than the questions being asked. It is also important to be consistent in the interview process (how you open, etc.) to produce the same results, to be sensitive to language used, and to realize the length of an appropriate interview will depend on the cultural background of the interviewee. Always remember to write down the setting, how you think the interview went, and any other significant details to give the reader a better sense of what occurred.
The project itself is an IPCRI initiative to try to understand the priorities and needs of both Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlers by asking them questions about themselves and their perceptions of the future of the West Bank and the conflict. We define refugees as not only the Palestinians expelled in 1948, but their children and grandchildren as well (as oppose to considering only the individuals who were expelled themselves as refugees and not their descendants). This is because according to international law, descendants of refugees are taken in by the country that houses them. Since the Palestinians are refugees in their own state (being that Israel does not recognize Palestine and will not give citizenship to the refugees from 1948 or their descendants), this doesn't apply.
In many ways, we are searching for the unknown that can help us better identify what needs to happen to create a two state solution where both peoples are satisfied. From the information provided in the interviews, we hope to produce a policy paper and an academic study. We will need to make sure our interviewees know our goals from the start. As far as the structure is concerned, the interviews will consist of two parts. First, we will ask the list of questions we have composed (some personal and others a matter of opinion) and expect them to take an hour and a half or so to be discussed. Second, we will present around 10 options (give or take) for possible resolutions to the conflict and ask which ones are approved of and which are not in order to get a better perception of what people are willing to compromise on.
It can be expected that the approach of this study (such as the types of questions, order in which things are presented, etc.) will be slightly modified as we interview the first set of individuals and decipher what methods are beneficial and which are counterproductive. I'm excited to participate in a study from its consummation and observe all the various elements that contribute to its completion.
No comments:
Post a Comment