As a part of the border-making process that occurs during the social constructionist interview, realities and various preassumed roles are created by researchers and by their respondents. Arbitrary lines are set between researcher and respondent during the interview as the researcher seeks to better understand and tell the story of his or her interviewee in a clear and controlled manner. The authors do not consider the Romanticist aim of obtaining structure-free experience; rather, they contend with the inevitable border-making process of communication. This article explores the social constructionist interview by examining how to contend with four forms of border making: (a) the borders of control, (b) research agendas as border making, (c) language and discipline as border making, and (d) the border-making influences of roles and socialization. Examples from a multicultural research interview project are used to contextualize the argument.
Alcoff, L. (1995). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. In N. Tuana & R. Tong (Eds.), Feminism & philosophy (pp. 434-456). San Francisco: Westview.
2.
Allen, C. (2001). What do you do over there, anyway? Tales of an academic dual citizen. In M. Mayberry, B. Subramaniam, & L. H. Weasel (Eds.), Feminist science studies: A new generation (pp. 22-29). New York: Routledge.
3.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.
4.
Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Briggs, C. L. (2003). Interviewing, power/knowledge and social inequality. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 495-506). London: Sage.
6.
Chan, G., & Sharma, N. (2003). A dot and a line: A new project by Gaye Chan. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Dilthey, W. (1976). Selected writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Ellis, C., & Berger, L. (2003). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 849-875). London: Sage.
10.
Ellis, C., & Bouchner, A. P. (Eds.).(1996). Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
11.
Ellis, C., & Flaherty, M. G. (Eds.).(1992). Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
Flax, J. (1992). The end of innocence. In J. Butler & J. W. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 445-463). New York: Routledge.
13.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Vol. 1: An introduction. New York: Pantheon.
14.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.
15.
Gadamer, H. G. (1990). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Crossroads.
16.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage.
18.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Hanrahan, M., Cooper, T., & Burroughs-Lange, S. (1999). The place of personal writing in a PhD thesis: Epistemological and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(4), 401-416.
20.
Harding, S. (2001). Is science multicultural? Challenges, resources, opportunities, uncertainties. In M. Lederman & I. Bartsch (Eds.), The gender and science reader (pp. 189-212). New York: Routledge.
21.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. London: Sage.
22.
Kirsch, G. E., & Mortensen, P. (1999). Towards an ethics of research. In G. E. Kirsch (Ed.), Ethical dilemmas in feminist research (pp. 87-103). Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
Lather, P., & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CO: Westview.
24.
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. New York: Harcourt Brace.
25.
Manning, P. L. (1967). Problems in interpreting interview data. Sociology and Social Research, 51, 301-316.
26.
McCarthy, E. D. (1995). Knowledge as culture: The new sociology of knowledge. New York: Routledge.
27.
McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial identity with white teachers. Albany: State University of New York Press.
28.
Mills, C. W. (1939). Language, logic, and culture. American Sociological Review, 4, 670-680.
29.
Millman, M., & Kanter, R. M. (1987). Feminist perspectives on social life and social science. In S. G. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 29-36). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
30.
Mishler, E. (2003). Representing discourse: The rhetoric of transcription. In Y. Lincoln & N. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief (pp. 297-326). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
31.
Munro, P. (1998). Subject to fiction: Women teacher’s life history narratives and the cultural politics of resistance. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
32.
Raven, P. H., Evert, R. F., & Eichhorn, S. E. (1999). Biology of plants (6th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
33.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers: The problem of social reality. The Hague, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
36.
Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Scott, D. (1994). Formations of ritual: Colonial and anthropological discourses on the Sinhala Yaktovil. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
38.
Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
Subramaniam, B. (2001). And the mirror cracked! Reflections of natures and cultures. In M. Mayberry, B. Subramaniam, & L. H. Weasel (Eds.), Feminist science studies: A new generation (pp. 55-62). New York: Routledge.
41.
Turner, S. (1998). The limits of social constructionism. In I. Velody & R. Williams (Eds.), The politics of constructionism (pp. 109-120). London: Sage.
42.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Visweswaran, K. (1994). Fictions of feminist ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
