Interviewing Women authors Shulamit Reinharz and Susan E. Chase examine the role of women as “perceivers” when it comes to social research and look at how women have been traditionally disregarded as worthy interview subjects by men (p. 222). Women had been perceived by others, but not given the opportunity to be heard. In this research, Reinharz and Shulamit address the issue of “gynopia,” which is the inability to see women in social settings and traditional social sciences (p.222).
Reinharz and Chase discuss the notion that interviewing women can’t be a “one-size-fits-all” approach –an interesting notion applicable to the concept of interviewing in general. Interviewers need to take into account the race, ethnicities, classes, sexual orientations, ages, disabilities or abilities of their interviewees. The authors mention that women in general have many different life experiences and varied ways in communicating with the researcher. There is a “missing tradition” in terms of interviewing women because throughout the 19th and (much of) the 20th Century, the majority of men did not have an interest in interviewing women, unfortunately leading to male perspectives and untested, unexamined assumptions about the lives of women (p.223).
A different narrative emerges when women who are usually silenced are given a voice to speak. Reinharz and Chase describe the story of a researcher who wrote about her experiences in interviewing homeless women. She found these women had certain needs and hopes that hadn’t been heard because no one cared to hear them or ask. The perspectives of these women had been completely disregarded; therefore, it is important to allow those the opportunity to have a voice who may not otherwise have had that chance. Reinharz and Chase’s article also describes how women interviewing other women can cause the reviewer to participate in their own self disclosure and sometimes have mirroring experiences with the interviewee. The interviewing process can affect the researcher herself, causing her to relive or recount her own similar past experiences (p.226-227).
Reihnarz and Chase discuss (p. 228) how female interviewers may establish connections or “sisterly bonds” with female interviewees and they offer examples of how these bonds occur through the interview process (a study of single women involved with married men whereby some interviewees cried and expressed gratitude to the interviewer for the sense of release the interview provided). The authors indicate a major drawback in treating this type of relationship as an “ideal research relationship” is that either party may not want or need to continue the relationship past the research. Also, this type of relationship may be condescending to the interviewee. The authors distinguish between “rapport” (which they view as a necessary ingredient for interviewing and define as strong listening skills) and “intense bonding” (which they describe as a promise of future support or friendship). They further indicate that researchers have a responsibility to fully articulate the expectation of the research and set boundaries to the research process. If an intense bond forms, that should be considered a “serendipitous event” and not the norm.
On p. 230 the authors share some of the issues that may arise with women interviewees including social location and subjectivities. Some social scientists argue that due to the heavy responsibilities of working class women of color, they may be less willing and more skeptical to participate in social research. Also, the fact that an interviewer may share the same ethnicity as their interviewee does not mean that the interviewer will fully identify with the ethnic identity of that interviewee. For other interviewers, ethnicity may be an inhibiting factor while for others it may be liberating. According to the authors, what feminist researchers should share is a commitment to reflect upon the complexities of their own and participants’ social locations and subjectivities.
In the section Men Interviewing Women (p. 232), Reinharz and Chase indicate that women may feel more inclined to share personal details of their experiences with women instead of men, suggesting that gender affects voluntary sharing of personal experience. Gender can also affect where interviews take place and, at times, a male interviewer may decide not to conduct the interview himself. Basically, the same methodological principles apply when men interview women as it does when women interview women: the researcher must take into account his/her own social location and how they may affect the research relationship.
The authors conclude the article by indicating that interpreting women’s words and stories requires a delicate and reflexive balancing act. Researchers need to understand and respect participants’ interpretations of their lives especially if those interpretations differ from their own lives. Finally, the researcher needs to be open to how these interpretations may change over time.
