2007 年 52 巻 1 号 p. 21-36,159
Recently, it has become a new methodological agenda to discuss the methodologies of interviews which could be collected under the rubric of "interview as interaction." But it seems that such discussions do not make clearer the sociological status of the description which is produced by that method.The task of this paper is to point out some confusion in such discussions, and make the viewpoint of "interview as interaction" into a methodological discussion which can thoroughly describe "people's lives."
Methodologies that emphasize the view of "interview as interaction" often differentiate themselves from the standpoint which emphasizes "the facticity of data" or "the pattern of narrative." But apart from facticity or pattern, it is unclear what becomes the value of the data.There are two confusions concerning the view of "interaction."
First concerns the usage of the two terms, "construction" and "interpretation." By virtue of the confused usage of these terms in such methodology, our understanding of other's conduct is reduced to the activity of "interpretation." The second confusion concerns the claim that they describe not "fact" or "pattern of narrative" but "the mode (or form) of narrative." But in such a claim, "the mode (or form) of narrative" becomes a "model" prepared on the researcher's side.Both miss the difference of the various actions and activities in actual interaction and do not make clear the implication of the term "interaction" within the methodology of interviews.
But, for the interviewee, the interview is one scene of his/her life in a literal sense.If this is so, the behavior and the activity which appear there must be the part of his/her life and describing them must be directly describing his/her life.Here, using particular data, we present that proposition and argue the importance of the viewpoint of "interview as interaction."