Doing the interviews

When conducting interviews, there is a lot to keep in mind in the moment and a lot of factors that can influence how the interview goes. I just mentioned how the interview subjects can influence each other, but one of the most important things to keep in mind is how I, as an interviewer, also make a

difference for the outcome. As I talked about previously, we all have our way of understanding and perceiving the world and this influences that way we interact with each other (Smith, 2012, p.23). This can be very relevant to the interview situation.

Though we might wish it to be different, sex, age and ethnicity can all influence how we act around others and how we perceive what they have to say – not to mention how much they wish to tell me. While people’s motivation for travel should not change based on the person they are talking to, they might word

it differently or choose how much they say depending on their perception of me.

(Denscombe, 2014, pp. 189-190)

It is hard to control how people respond to you based on things that are beyond your control, but it is important to be aware, in the moment and

afterwards, that their perception of you has an influence on their answers. Of course, in general, as researchers, we try to present ourselves in a neutral or non-offensive way. But, keeping in mind that certain personal characteristics will have a certain degree of influence, it is important to make sure they matter as little as possible. (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 190-191)

I have already mentioned how the interviews took place in different settings and how I reached the subjects in different ways. I would now like to discuss how these differences impacted the interview process.

As previously mentioned, it would have been easier if I could have made arrangements with the subjects regarding time and place ahead of time, but that did not turn out to be practically possible. The interviews I did with Glød were the most organized, though they came at a short notice, I was able to find a place where we could talk undisturbed.

Finding a good place to talk is very important, as during the interview we should be able to focus on the conversation, not the surroundings. It is also important to get a comfortable seating arrangement, where we both/all see each other and hear each other well, without getting so close that you get into each other’s personal space. Mostly I sat across the table from the subjects, though with the biggest group it was a little difficult and ended up having one person next to me and some on the side. Either way, it still worked out well. (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 193-194)

With most of the interviews I did with participants from Glød, I was able to do them at Scandic, which provided me with both a more neutral ground, as well as a location where we could close the door and be alone. The only exception

was a couple that I interviewed at Glød’s location and the setting was immediately different. Not only did the guide come in to say goodbye mid-interview, caused an abrupt pause, but having finished the interview, I felt a little rushed to get out of their space, so they could be left in peace.

I had a slightly similar experience with the first couple I interviewed at Holmen, which was the only interview that was pre-arranged. The interview went very well, but once I had stopped the recording, it was like a rush back to reality.

Now I was in their space without purpose and I had to awkwardly pack my things so I could leave them to enjoy their holiday.

There was a difference in the power-balance. While interviewing people at Scandic felt like we were more on equal terms, as we met on an equal ground, going to interview tourists at the companies, where they were having their

experience, felt very much like it was on their terms. Which it was, obviously, as I was asking them a favour and disturbing their holiday.

The power-imbalance felt more prominent with the rest of the participants from Holmen, which I had no prior arrangements with. As I was asking them to take time out of their day to talk to me, I ended up waiting around a lot for them to get ready. There were also a lot more disturbances in the background, such as howling huskies and noisy coffee machines, as the interviews took place in the common area.

The interviews themselves were what made the whole, exhausting process worth it. Once both parties had sat down, I would first expand on what I had told them during our first meeting, either when they stepped off the bus or when I approached them about the interview. I would then inform them about the recordings and give them a chance to look over and sign the consent-form (sometimes I would also give them these to look over during dinner). Next, once everything was sound and everyone was ready, I would start the recording and dive into the interview. (Denscombe, 2014, p. 194)

As mentioned previously, I would ease them into the interview with some easier questions. This is common and good practice during interviews, to get the subject to relax and warm to the conversation. I would then dig deeper, trying to find a balance between having a more natural conversation and getting the answers I needed. Sometimes they would answer things indirectly, before I had the chance to touch on the subject, while other times I needed to try different angles to get answer. And, other times again, I would not get any answer and realized I just needed to move on with the conversation. (Denscombe, 2014, pp.

194-195)

The more interviews I did, the less I needed to look at the interview guide that I had made. This can be dangerous, of course, as you might lose consistency between the interviews. Still, I always asked the main questions for every

interview. Part of the reason I felt I could be freer with the later interviews was because I had become more familiar with the questions and the topics from having worked with them so much. It is also worth noting that sometimes the wording of the original questions felt a little unnatural and as I realized I had to formulate myself differently to be better understood, I changed it in practice – though not on paper. (Smith, 2012, p.115)

Obviously, before conducting the interviews, it is hard not to have some theories as to what people might say, but it is important to let go of these as soon as possible. If you are too preoccupied with what you think you will hear, then you forget to listen to what is actually being said. In my case, I was happy to discard the ideas I had of what I might find, as I realized the answers I got were far more nuanced and interesting. (Smith, 2012, p.115)

Overall I found the results from the interviews were rich and insightful.

Some of them took longer than expected and two neared one hour long each. As an interviewer it is important to keep track of time, but the reason some interviews went on longer than others was simply because the conversation was so

interesting. If the participants seemed tired, I would try to wrap it up as soon as

possible, but often this would not come until we were nearing the end, anyway.

(Denscombe, 2014, pp. 194-195)