2013Qualitative ResearchOpen access

The sustained snapshot: Incidental ethnographic encounters in qualitative interview studies

Dina Pinsky

Open full text 42 citations

Abstract

The literature on qualitative methods assumes that researchers will conduct interviews in the course of a participant-observation study but not that extensive observations of interviewees might happen to take place during an interview study. In this article, I raise questions about interview study methodologies, using the example of a life history interview project in which the interviewer stayed at interviewee’s homes, met with them for meals, encountered them at events, and kept careful field notes on all of these incidental ethnographic encounters. Reflecting on the ambivalent status of such incidental ethnographic encounters, I argue that qualitative interview methods suffer from the limitations of positivism because the interview encounter is privileged as the sole source of knowledge. I call for a more flexible approach to qualitative interviews that can accommodate and derive knowledge from the full range of encounters between the researcher and participant.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The literature on qualitative methods assumes that researchers will conduct interviews in the course of a participant-observation study but not that extensive observations of interviewees might happen to take place during an interview study. In this article, I raise questions about interview study methodologies, using the example of a life history interview project in which the interviewer stayed at interviewee’s homes, met with them for meals, encountered them at events, and kept careful field notes on all of these incidental ethnographic encounters. Reflecting on the ambivalent status of such incidental ethnographic encounters, I argue that qualitative interview methods suffer from the limitations of positivism because the interview encounter is privileged as the sole source of knowledge. I call for a more flexible approach to qualitative interviews that can accommodate and derive knowledge from the full range of encounters between the researcher and participant.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 42 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The literature on qualitative methods assumes that researchers will conduct interviews in the course of a participant-observation study but not that extensive observations of interviewees might happen to take place during an interview study. In this article, I raise questions about interview study methodologies, using the example of a life history interview project in which the interviewer stayed at interviewee’s homes, met with them for meals, encountered them at events, and kept careful field notes on all of these incidental ethnographic encounters. Reflecting on the ambivalent status of such incidental ethnographic encounters, I argue that qualitative interview methods suffer from the limitations of positivism because the interview encounter is privileged as the sole source of knowledge. I call for a more flexible approach to qualitative interviews that can accommodate and derive knowledge from the full range of encounters between the researcher and participant.

Key concepts: Ethnography, Interview, Participant observation, Qualitative research, Ambivalence, Semi-structured interview, Psychology, Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The sustained snapshot: Incidental ethnographic encounters in qualitative interview studies — Research Paper | ScholarLens