Scholars have recently begun to discuss joint interviewing from a methodological perspective, generally presenting a favorable view of this mode of interviewing. In the present article, the author draws on her experiences with interviewing obstructive sleep apnea patients and their partners to shed further light on the methodological and ethical challenges of joint interviews. Specifically, it is shown that joint interviews may become a site in which one partner silences the other and enacts symbolic violence, with the interviewer as unwilling abettor, or alternatively may facilitate passivity. Joint interviewing may therefore prevent researchers from giving an equal voice to both partners, resulting in partial and fragmented data. In addition, the joint approach may generate tension between members of the couple and harm the quality of relationships, thus contravening the researcher’s commitment to non-maleficence. The author points to a few possible solutions and suggests interviewing social partners as an alternative to couples.
AllanG. (1980). A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 205–210. doi:10.2307/351948
2.
AquilinoW. S. (1993). Effect of spouse presence during the interview on survey responses concerning marriage. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 358–376.
3.
ArkseyH. (1996). Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update,15, 1–8.
4.
BarbourR. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
5.
BjornholtM.FarstadG. R. (2014). “Am I rambling?” On the advantages of interviewing couples together. Qualitative Research, 14, 3–19. doi:10.1177/1468794112459671
6.
BottorffJ. L.KalawC.JohnsonJ. L.StewartM.GreavesL. (2005). Tobacco use in intimate spaces: Issues in the study of couple dynamics. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 564–577. doi:10.1177/1049732304269675
7.
BourdieuP.ThompsonJ. B. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BrownJ. (1997). Circular questioning: An introductory guide. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 109–114. doi:10.1002/j.1467-8438.1997.tb00276.x
9.
CaldwellK. (2014). Dyadic interviewing: A technique valuing interdependence in interviews with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Qualitative Research, 14, 488–507. doi:10.1177/1468794113490718
10.
ColtenH. R.AltevogtB. M. (Eds.). (2006). Sleep disorders and sleep deprivation: An unmet public health problem. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies Press.
11.
EisikovitsZ.KorenC. (2010). Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1642–1655. doi:10.1177/1049732310376520
12.
FerreiraL. C.NarcisoI.NovoR. (2013). Authenticity, work and change: A qualitative study on couple intimacy. Families, Relationships and Societies, 2, 339–354. doi:10.1332/204674313x668569
13.
ForbatL.HendersonJ. (2003). “Stuck in the middle with you”: The ethics and process of qualitative research with two people in an intimate relationship. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 1453–1462. doi:10.1177/1049732303255836
14.
FrankA. W. (2002). Why study people’s stories? The dialogical ethics of narrative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, Article 6.
15.
GabbJ. (2010). Home truths: Ethical issues in family research. Qualitative Research, 10, 461–478. doi:10.1177/1468794110366807
16.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822x05279903
17.
HaahrA.NorlykA.HallE. O. C. (2014). Ethical challenges embedded in qualitative research interviews with close relatives. Nursing Ethics, 21, 6–15. doi:10.1177/0969733013486370
18.
HardenJ.Backett-MilburnK.HillM.MacLeanA. (2010). Oh, what a tangled web we weave: Experiences of doing “multiple perspectives” research in families. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 441–452. doi:10.1080/13645571003650979
19.
HartmannP. (1994). Interviewing when the spouse is present. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 298–306. doi:10.1093/ijpor/6.3.298
20.
HenryD.RosenthalL. (2013). “Listening for his breath”: The significance of gender and partner reporting on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Social Science & Medicine, 79, 48–56. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.021
21.
HewittJ. (2007). Ethical components of researcher—Researched relationships in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1149–1159. doi:10.1177/1049732307308305
22.
JordanB.JamesS.KayH.RedleyM. (1992). Trapped in poverty? Labour market decisions in low-income households. London: Routledge.
23.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
24.
LewisR. (2009). Recruiting parents and children into a research project: A qualitative exploration of families’ decision-making processes. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 405–419. doi:10.1080/13645570802289104
25.
LowJ. (2012). Conflict or concert? Extending the simmelian triad to account for positive third party presence in face-to-face interviews with people living with Parkinson’s disease. Societies, 2, 210-221.
26.
MellorR. M.SlaymakerE.ClelandJ. (2013). Recognizing and overcoming challenges of couple interview research. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 1399–1407. doi:10.1177/1049732313506963
27.
MorrisS. M. (2001). Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 553–567. doi:10.1177/104973201129119208
28.
MorseJ. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 147–149. doi:10.1177/104973239500500201
29.
MorseJ. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 1212–1222. doi:10.1177/1049732315588501
30.
NorlykA.HaahrA.HallE. (2016). Interviewing with or without the partner present?—An underexposed dilemma between ethics and methodology in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72, 936–945. doi:10.1111/jan.12871
31.
PolakL.GreenJ. (2016). Using joint interviews to add analytic value. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1638–1648. doi:10.1177/1049732315580103
32.
ReczekC. (2014). Conducting a multi family member interview study. Family Process, 53, 318-335. doi:10.1111/famp.12060
33.
RileyM. (2014). Interviewing fathers and sons together: Exploring the potential of joint interviews for research on family farms. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 237–246. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.09.003
34.
SakellariouD.BonifaceG.BrownP. (2013). Using joint interviews in a narrative-based study on illness experiences. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 1563–1570. doi:10.1177/1049732313508014
35.
SealeC.Charteris-BlackJ.DumelowC.LocockL.ZieblandS. (2008). The effect of joint interviewing on the performance of gender. Field Methods, 20, 107–128. doi:10.1177/1525822x07313837
36.
SeymourJ.DixG.EardleyT. (1995). Joint accounts: Methodology and practice in research interviews with couples. York, UK: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York.
37.
SohierR. (1995). The dyadic interview as a tool for nursing research. Applied Nursing Research, 8, 96–101. doi:10.1016/s0897-1897(95)80562-1
38.
StaceyJ. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography?Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 21–27.
39.
TaylorB.de VochtH. (2011). Interviewing separately or as couples? Considerations of authenticity of method. Qualitative Health Research, 21, 1576–1587. doi:10.1177/1049732311415288
40.
ValentineG. (1999). Doing household research: Interviewing couples together and apart. Area, 31, 67–74.
41.
ZarhinD. (2015). Contesting medicalisation, doubting the diagnosis: Israeli patients’ ambivalence towards the diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37, 715–730. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12229
42.
ZarhinD. (2016a). Delaying and seeking care for obstructive sleep apnea: The role of gender, family, and morality. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1363459316677625
43.
ZarhinD. (2016b). Sleep as a gendered family affair: Snoring and the “dark side” of relationships. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1888–1901. doi:10.1177/1049732315583270
44.
ZarhinD. (2017a). Researching sleep-related problems drawing on interviews with both patients and their partners: Thoughts about post-dissertation research. In SAGE research methods cases (pp. 1–14). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781526403810
45.
ZarhinD. (2017b). “I don’t want to see myself as a disabled person”: Continuous positive airway pressure devices and the emergence of (dis)ability as subjectivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0162243917711006
46.
ZippJ. F.TothJ. (2002). She said, he said, they said: The impact of spousal presence in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 177–208. doi:10.1086/340028
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
