Advertisement

On Interviewing “Good” and “Bad” Experts

  • Jochen Gläser
  • Grit Laudel
Chapter
Part of the Research Methods Series book series (REMES)

Abstract

The success of interview-based investigations considerably depends on the “quality” of the interviewees, that is on the extent to which they meet our expectations in the interview situation. We expect interviewees to understand which information we need, to provide this information in extensive, complete and detailed responses, and to adjust their communication to our steering of the conversation. We also hope to meet respondents which reflect on their own social situation and who are able to provide information about their perceptions, social relations and motives.1

Keywords

Performance Level External Funding Quality Problem Expert Interview Aspiration Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Further readings

  1. Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D. and Sailer, L. (1984) “The Problem of Informant Accuracy: The Validity of Retrospective Data” in Annual Review of Anthropology 13, 495–517.Google Scholar
  2. Dean, J. P. and Foote Whyte, W. (1958) “How Do You Know If the Informant is Telling the Truth” in Human Organization 17, 34–9.Google Scholar
  3. Laudel, G. (2006) “The ‘quality myth’: Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds” in Higher Education 52, 375–403.Google Scholar

References

  1. Becker, H. S. and Geer, B. (1970) “Participant Observation and Interviewing: A Comparison” in Filstead, W. J. (ed.) Qualitative Methodology: Firsthand Involvement with the Social World (Chicago: Markham Publishing), pp. 133–42.Google Scholar
  2. Bernard, H. R. (2002) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Walnut Creek: Altamira Press).Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D. and Sailer, L. (1984) “The Problem of Informant Accuracy: The Validity of Retrospective Data” in Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 13, 495–517.Google Scholar
  4. Bogner, A. and Menz, W. (2005) “Expertenwissen und Forschungspraxis: Die modernisierungstheoretische und die methodische Debatte um die Experten. Zur Einführung in ein unübersichtliches Problemfeld” in Bogner, A., Littig, B. and Menz, W. (eds) Das Experteninterview — Theorie, Methode, Anwendung, 2nd edn (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), pp. 7–30.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, J. R. and Cole, S. (1972) The Ortega Hypothesis, Science 178, pp. 368–75.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, J. R. and Cole, S. (1967) “Scientific Output and Recognition, a Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science” in American Sociological Review 32, 377–90.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, S. (1970) “Professional Standing and the Reception of Scientific Discoveries” in American Journal of Sociology 76, 286–306.Google Scholar
  8. D. Crane (1972) Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  9. Dean, J. P. and Whyte, W. F. (1958) “How Do You Know If the Informant is Telling the Truth” in Human Organization 17, 34–9.Google Scholar
  10. Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2009) Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen, 3rd edn (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften).Google Scholar
  11. Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2007a) “The social construction of bibliometric methods” in Barker, K., Gläser, J. and Whitley, R. (eds.) The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 101–23.Google Scholar
  12. Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2007b) “Evaluation without Evaluators: The impact of funding formulae on Australian University Research” in Gläser, J. and Whitley, R. (eds.) he Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 127–51.Google Scholar
  13. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965) The Scientific Community (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press).Google Scholar
  14. Hopf, C. (1993 [1979]) “Soziologie und qualitative Sozialforschung” in Hopf, C and Weingarten, E. (eds.) Qualitative Sozialforschung (Stuttgart: Klett-Kotta).Google Scholar
  15. Jackson, D. N. and Rushton, J. P. (eds.) (1987) Scientific Excellence. Origins and Assessment. (Newbury Park: SAGE).Google Scholar
  16. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1984) Die Fabrikation von Erkenntnis. Zur Anthropologie der Naturwissenschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986 [1979]) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton: University Press).Google Scholar
  18. Laudel, G. (2005) “Is external funding a valid indicator for research performance?” in Research Evaluation 14, 27–34.Google Scholar
  19. Laudel, G. (2006a) “The art of getting funded: How Scientists adapt to their funding conditions” in Science and Public Policy 33, 489–504.Google Scholar
  20. Laudel, G. (2006b) “The ‘quality myth’: Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds” in Higher Education 52, 375–403.Google Scholar
  21. Lynch, M. (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: outledge and Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  22. Pelz, D. C. and Andrews, F. M. (1966) Scientists in organizations. Productive Climates for Research and Development (New York: iley).Google Scholar
  23. Richards, D. (1996) “Doing Politics: Elite Interviewing: Approaches and Pitfalls” in Politics 16, 199–204.Google Scholar
  24. Zelditch Jr., M. (1961) “Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies” in American Journal of Sociology 67, 566–76.Google Scholar
  25. Zuckerman, H. and Cole, J. R. (1994) “Research Strategies in Science: A Preliminary Inquiry” in Creativity Research Journal 7, 391–405.Google Scholar
  26. Zuckerman, H. (1977) Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States (New York: Free Press).Google Scholar
  27. Zuckerman, H. (1972) “Interviewing an Ultra-Elite” in Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 159–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jochen Gläser and Grit Laudel 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Gläser
  • Grit Laudel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations