Abstract
PurposeDespite the growing pressure to encourage new ways of thinking about research methodology, only recently have interview methodologists begun to realize that “we cannot lift the results of interviewing out of the contexts in which they were gathered and claim them as objective data with no strings attached”. The purpose of this paper is to provide additional insight based on a critical reflection of the interview as a research method drawing upon Alvesson's discussion from the neopositivist, romanticist and localist interview perspectives. Specifically, the authors focus on critical reflections of three broad categories of a continuum of interview methods: structured, semi‐structured and unstructured interviews.Design/methodology/approachThe authors adopt a critical and reflexive approach to understanding the literature on interviews to develop alternative insights about the use of interviews as a qualitative research method.FindingsAfter examining the neopositivist (interview as a “tool”) and romanticist (interview as “human encounter”) perspectives on the use of the research interview, the authors adopt a localist perspective towards interviews and argue that the localist approach opens up alternative understanding of the interview process and the accounts produced provide additional insights. The insights are used to outline the skills researchers need to develop in applying the localist perspective to interviews.Originality/valueThe paper provides an alternative perspective on the practice of conducting interviews, recognizing interviews as complex social and organizational phenomena rather than just a research method.
Subject
Accounting,Business and International Management
Reference53 articles.
1. Ahrens, T. and Dent, J.F. (1998), “Accounting and organizations: realizing the richness of field research”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1‐39.
2. Alvesson, M. (2003), “Beyond neopositivisits, romantics and localists: a reflective approach to interviews in organizational research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 13‐33.
3. Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000), Doing Critical Management Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
4. Arksey, H. and Knight, P. (1999), Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory Resource with Examples, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
5. Baxter, J.A. and Chua, W.F. (1998), “Doing field research: practice and meta‐theory in counterpoint”, Journal of Managment Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 69‐87.
Cited by
835 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献