Interview Models and Researcher’s Self-Positioning

  • Olga PetintsevaEmail author
  • Rita Faria
  • Yarin Eski


This chapter presents several interview models that can be applied while conducting interviews with the powerful. ‘Informal’ interviewing that often takes place in ethnographic contexts is outlined, as well as the ‘classical’ doxastic interviewing. We then move on to more specific interview models, such as the ‘looking glass’ model, where researcher positions herself or himself as a peer or even as a co-expert, ‘epistemic interviews’, which probe into the foundation for the judgments about situations, and ‘active’ interviewing models, in which the researcher assumes a rather critical role. All of these models will be discussed according to the type of knowledge they generate, interviewer’s self-positioning, the nature of interview interactions and interviewing styles.


Interview models Positionality Ethnographic interviews Doxastic interviews Epistemic interviews 


  1. Acker, J., Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(4), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Australia.Google Scholar
  4. Bajc, V., & De Lint, W. (Eds.). (2011). Security and everyday life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H. (1997/1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beizsley, D. (forthcoming). Researching elites: The ‘ethics of access’ and circumventing organizational gatekeepers. Tijdschrift over Cultuur en Criminaliteit, 9(3).Google Scholar
  7. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (Eds.). (2009). Interviewing experts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009). The theory-generating expert interview: Epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & Menz, W. (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 43–80). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourgois, P. (2003). In search of respect: Selling crack in El Barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Breton, D. (2004). L’interactionnisme symbolique. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  13. Briggs, C. L. (2002). Interviewing, power/knowledge, and social inequality. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 495–506). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Brinkmann, S. (2007). Could interviews be epistemic? An alternative to qualitative opinion polling. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1116–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryson, N. (1988). The gaze in the expanded field. In H. Foster (Ed.), Vision and visuality (pp. 87–108). Seattle: The New Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clear, T. R. (1994). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims, and their communities. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  17. Clifford, J., & Marcus, J. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Collins, P. (1993). Learning for the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. In J. Glazer, E. Bensimon, & B. Townsend (Eds.), Women in higher education (pp. 45–65). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
  19. Desmond, M. (2004). Methodological challenges posed in studying an elite in the field. Area, 36(3), 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dror, I. E. (2007). Perception of risk and the decision to use force. Policing, 1(3), 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duke, K. (2002). Getting beyond the ‘official line’: Reflections on dilemmas of access, knowledge and power in researching policy networks. Journal of Social Policy, 31(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eski, Y. (2016). Policing, port security and crime control: An ethnography of the port securityscape. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Faria, R. (2018). Research misconduct as white-collar crime: A criminological approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferrell, J. (2009). Kill method: A provocation. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  25. Ferrell, J., Hayward, K. J., & Young, J. (2015). Cultural criminology: An invitation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Françoise, C. (2011). Le cabinet du juge de la jeunesse: Espace d’éloignement, de rupture et de rapprochement. Champ Pénal, VIII, 22–29.Google Scholar
  27. Goldstein, D. M. (2010). Security and the culture expert: Dilemmas of an engaged anthropology. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 33(1), 126–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Harding, S., & Norberg, K. (2005). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies. Signs, 30(4), 2009–2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey, W. S. (2010). Methodological approaches for interviewing elites. Geography Compass, 4(3), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herod, A. (1999). Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: Praxis, positionality, validity, and the cult of the insider. Geoforum, 30, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hertz, R., & Imber, J. (1995). Studying elites using qualitative methods. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ho, K. (2009). Liquidated: An ethnography of Wall Street. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kane, S. (2004). The unconventional methods of cultural criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 8(3), 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kezar, A. (2003). Transformational elite interviews: Principles and problems. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Konopinski, N. (2009). Ordinary security: An ethnography of security practices and perspectives in Tel Aviv. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  37. Kvale, S. (2005). The dominance of dialogical interview research: A critical view. Barn, 12(3), 89–105.Google Scholar
  38. Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 139–165). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Lilleker, D. G. (2003). Interviewing the political elite: Navigating a potential minefield. Politics, 23(3), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Mikecz, R. (2012). Interviewing elites. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(6), 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Noaks, L., & Wincup, E. (2004). Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ochs, J. (2010). Security and suspicion: An ethnography of everyday life in Israel. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  44. Odendahl, T., & Shaw, A. (2001). Interviewing elites. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 299–316). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Oude Breuil, B. (2011). Alles stroomt…? Over ‘cultuur’ in de culturele criminologie. Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, 1, 18–34.Google Scholar
  46. Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenview: Scott, Foresman, and Company.Google Scholar
  47. Petintseva, O. (2018). Youth justice and migration: Discursive harms. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Petintseva, O. (2019). Reflections after ‘Socrates light’: Eliciting and countering narratives of youth justice officials. In J. Fleetwood, L. Presser, S. Sandberg, & T. Ugelvik (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of narrative criminology (pp. 87–108). London: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Presser, L. (2004). Violent offenders, moral selves: Constructing identities and accounts in the research interview. Social Problems, 51, 82–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Presser, L. (2005). Negotiating power and narrative in research: Implications for feminist methodology. Signs, 30(3), 2067–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Presser, L. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Presser, L. (2013). Why we harm. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Presser, L., & Sandberg, S. (2015). Introduction: What is the story? In L. Presser & S. Sandberg (Eds.), Narrative criminology: Understanding stories of crime (pp. 1–22). New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  54. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rhodes, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (Eds.). (2007). Observing government elites: Up close and personal. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Roulston, K., & Choi, M. (2018). Qualitative interviews. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 233–249). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Saarikkomäki, E. (2015). Perceptions of procedural justice among young people: Narratives of fair treatment in young people’s stories of police and security guard interventions. British Journal of Criminology, 56(6), 1253–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sabot, E. C. (1999). Dr. Jekyl, Mr. H(i)de: The contrasting faces of elites at interview. Geoforum, 30, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sandberg, S. (2016). The importance of stories untold: Life-story, event-story and trope. Crime, Media, Culture, 12(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tanggaard, L. (2007). The research interview as discourses crossing swords: The researcher and apprentice on crossing roads. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Terrio, S. (2009). Judging Mohammed: Juvenile delinquency, immigration, and exclusion at the Paris Palace of Justice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Teusner, A. (2016). Insider research, validity issues, and the OHS professional: One person’s journey. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(1), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thuesen, F. (2011). Navigating between dialogue and confrontation: Phronesis and emotions in interviewing elites on ethnic discrimination. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(7), 613–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Audenhove, L. (2009). Using expert interviews. Doctoral Schools Humanities Workshop, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
  66. Van Audenhove, L., & Donders, K. (2019). Talking to people III: Expert interviews and elite interviews. In H. Van den Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, & L. Van Audenhove (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research (pp. 179–197). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vitus, K. (2008). The agonistic approach: Reframing resistance in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(3), 466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Walford, G. (1994). Reflections on researching the powerful. In G. Walford (Ed.), Researching the powerful in education. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wolfe, D. (1996). Feminist dilemma in fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  70. Zuckerman, H. (1972). Interviewing an ultra-elite. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social LawGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Law, School of CriminologyUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Political Science and Public AdministrationVU University AmsterdamAmsterdam, North HollandThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations