Week 5 Reading - Manderson et al (2006)

Question 1

General aim of Manderson et al (2006)

Answer 1

explore the performative nature of the interview, how interviewers and interviewees respond to the structural factors shaping social dynamics of the interview

by drawing on interviews conducted within an Australian study on chronic illness and disability

Question 2

How to better conduct research and interviews on people with disabilities?

Answer 2

Adopting the view of the interview as an embodied experience, with the qualities of good conversation

keeping interviewer positionality and reflexivity central

Question 3

What is positionality and reflexivity

Answer 3

(definitions not in the reading but i think are key terms in the reading)
Positionality refers to where one is located in relation to their various social identities

Reflexivity is the process of engaging in self-reflection about who we are as researchers, how our subjectivities and biases guide and inform the research process, and how our worldview is shaped by the research we do

Question 4

How is researcher reflexivity applied in the health research context

Answer 4

the researcher is part of the social world being studied
- they direct data collection and analysis but also co-create knowledge

The researcher and respondents position and con- struct themselves in relation to the interview and its topic, producing concomitant identities

Question 5

What do research interactions involve (Manderson)

Answer 5

social performances: comprised of enactments of self, social roles, and social characteristics

these are grounded in cultural values and scripts and are shaped by social context and setting (ie workplace, coffee shop) that can also highlight social class and other aspects of social identities

Question 6

Research method of Manderson et al (2006)

Answer 6

169 structured interviews
50 of these then did in-depth qualitative interviews - primarily narrative interviews: accounts of their loss of mobility and adaptation
- how they made sense of and experienced impaired mobility, and the impact of this on their social life
- loose interview guide
- tape recorded

Question 7

Sampling method of Manderson et al (2006)

Answer 7

Randomly sampled from Victoria, Australia
Inclusion criteria: adults with impaired mobility
30 GPs were asked to reach out to 7 patients with impaired mobility from any cause
Patients telephone called back

Question 8

Observation on specific narrative interviews in Manderson et al (2006)

Answer 8

• direction of the interview was determined by the interviewee (interviewee making choices based on social relationships and conventions of what is shared and withheld)

Question 9

Observation on age difference in interviews in Manderson et al (2006)

Answer 9

Younger interviewers were more direct in their conversations, and more private in the cases of shared traits. OIder interviewers often drew on life experiences to frame tentative or complex questions, and were more conversational. They used their experiences to relate to interviewees more, or were conversational to create trust.

Question 10

Observation on class difference in interviews in Manderson et al (2006)

Answer 10

Interviewers were middle class, interviewees often were not, so interviewers “dressed down”. They mirrored the tone and language (colloquialisms, etc) of the interviewee

Question 11

Observation on gender in interviews in Manderson et al (2006)

Answer 11

Common flow of narrative with women who were invited to tell a story. Women also displayed: interactional feedback expressing agreement and positive sup- port, and extended responses

men’s responses tend more often to be minimal and neutral
- reluctance to acknowledge, ask about, or elaborate on emotional distress (women found it easier to get men to open up)
- expression of emotion is often displaced with gesture or silence

With a gender difference (ie female interviewer male interviewee) there may be more perfunctory responses

Participants present themselves as gendered subjects