Interview procedure
03.10.2004Stephanie emailed & asked me to post about what my interview process is like. Well, it's actually rather simple. But I'll post the four basic "frame" questions I use, then explain how I do my interviews.
What is your opinion about the governing coalitions? Specifically, is there a relationship between the electoral system and government coalitions? Or do they have other causes?
What opinion do you have about the Bolivian party system?
What were the most present causes for October?
How do you see the national panorama? What constitutional or political changes do you see in the future?
These are informal interviews, so they turn into conversations. I sit down w/ an interview "subject" & talk, while a dictaphone (fancy word for "taperecorder") records the conversation. I start w/ the first question, then ask followup or clarification questions as needed until the conversation lends itself to a transition into the next question.
That's pretty much it. Nothing fancy. The reason for the questions' open format is to let the respondent come up w/ their own reasoning. There's no "leading question" (except perhaps where I specifically ask about the electoral system). I try to let the respondent go in whatever direction he/she wants. Then, I follow them in that direction, as appropriate.
Do I expect to find the "true" cause for coalition governments through this process? Of course not. Opinion isn't fact. All I'm concerned w/ are two things: A) since I'm interviewing "public intellectuals," their responses might turn me on to factors I hadn't yet considered and B) I'm trying to find out what "public political discourse" in Bolivia looks like. That's it. Nothing groundbreaking.
The reason I interview "public intellectuals" is because of their sociopolitical role. They play an important role in any society; they create/mold/diffuse opinions to the mass public. In Bolivia, academics are pundits are government officials. It's not uncommon for college professors to write weekly opinion columns & be (or have been) involved in some government project. So. Bolivian "public intellectuals" are extremely important. They're discussions don't just reflect — they almost encompass the whole of public political discourse.
Examples: Ricardo Paz wrote a history of Bolivian political parties, has advised several campaigns, and currently oversees the gas referendum constituent assembly. Carlos Hugo Molina, studies identity politics, helped write the Ley de Participación Popular, and was appointed Santa Cruz prefect by Mesa. Jorge Lazarte, studies electoral systems & democratic institutions & previously headed the National Electoral Court. Carlos Mesa wrote a seminal history of Bolivian presidents (Entre urnas y fusiles), moderated various academic conferences on politics & public communication, now he's president.
The Ley de Participación Popular, which decentralized the country & created 314 municipal governments was the product of an academic conference sponsored by ILDIS & other research institutes. A group of academics met to discuss "decentralization" — many of them were later called by Goni to head up the project eventually passed into law.
So. That's why I interview "public intellectuals" and care what they say — collectively & individually. I've added the question about October since, well, I can't not ask them about it. The interviews tend to last just under 30 minutes.
Posted by Miguel at 02:51 PM
Comments
When will you interview Evo?
Posted by: eduardo at March 10, 2004 05:47 PM
Ever tried playing devil's advocate to your interviewees?
Posted by: Steph at March 11, 2004 03:25 AM
I probably won't be interviewing Evo or any real "politicians" any time soon. If I have a chance, maybe. It's a fine line, but there is a division between "politicians" and "public intellectuals." I'm interested in studying the later — for "politicians" I'm doing content analysis of political speeches from 1985 onward, which gives me a "cross-temporal" analysis. For public intellectuals, I'm only interested in what the "political discourse space" looks like now (so it's cross-sectional, but not cross-temporal analysis).
That doesn't mean, of course, that I'm not interviewing people in Evo's "camp" (so-to-speak). Many academics (especially at the UMSA) are clearly in the POR-Trotskyite line sympathetic w/ Evo (or working as his advisors). I might, for example, interview Filemon Escobar, who blurs the line between politician & public intellectual (though leaning towards "politician").
The reason is that public intellectuals publish more frequently as (semi-)objective punditry; politicians tend to do soundbites or political posturing. So the discourse of public intellectuals has a greater impact on citizen-voter behavior than the discourse of politicians. Does that make sense?
As to playing devil's advocate: That would be grossly inapropriate in this context. I have to be as neutral/objective as possible in the interviews, following the subject's lead. I'm not trying to argue w/ them, but to draw out their position as clearly as possible. These are "friendly" interviews.
Posted by: Miguel at March 11, 2004 02:56 PM