In interviews with privileged individuals such as academics, power relations become particularly salient and explicit. Investigating how shifts in power relations are manifested in the interview allows us to understand the workings of power in academia as well as in the research process. This article presents a close analysis of selected segments of interviews with academics in elite positions to illustrate this. Comparisons between collaborative and non-cooperative interaction in the interview show interactional features that characterise such dynamics. By providing a reflexive and detailed analysis of interview episodes that characterise both cooperation and a refusal to cooperate, the article illustrates the significance of understanding discursive and contextual factors that are relevant to the management of interviews.
AnthonyAKDanaherWF (2016) Rules of the road: doing fieldwork and negotiating interactions with hesitant public figures. Qualitative Research16(4): 392–410. DOI: 10.1177/1468794115587392
2.
BelurJ (2014) Status, gender and geography: power negotiations in police research. Qualitative Research14(2): 184–200. DOI: 10.1177/1468794112468474
3.
BengtssonTTFynboL (2017) Analysing the significance of silence in qualitative interviewing: questioning and shifting power relations. Qualitative Research 18(1): 19–35. DOI: 10.1177/1468794117694220
4.
BennettA (1978) Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California, 557–575.
BockZ (2011) Code-switching: an appraisal resource in TRC testimonies. Functions of Language18(2): 183–209. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.2.02boc
7.
BoldenGB (2009) Beyond answering: repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs76(2): 121–143. DOI: 10.1080/03637750902828446
8.
BraydaWCBoyceTD (2014) So you really want to interview me?: navigating “Sensitive” qualitative research interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods13(1): 318–334. DOI: 10.1177/160940691401300115
9.
ClaymanSEHeritageJ (2002) Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication52(4): 749–775. DOI: 10.1093/joc/52.4.749
10.
ContiJAO’NeilM (2007) Studying power: qualitative methods and the global elite. Qualitative Research7(1): 63–82. DOI: 10.1177/1468794107071421
11.
De MelN (2017) Risky subjects: militarization in post-war Sri Lanka. In: ManchandaniR (ed.) Women and Politics of Peace: South Asia Narratives on Militarization, Power, and Justice. New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 137–154.
12.
FoucaultM (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
13.
GalSWoolardK (1995) Constructing language and publics: authority and representation. Pragmatics5(2): 129–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.5.2.01gal
14.
GartonSCoplandF (2010) “I like this interview; i get cakes and cats!”: the effect of prior relationships on interview talk. Qualitative Research10(5): 533–551. DOI: 10.1177/1468794110375231
15.
Gaztambide-FernándezRAHowardA (2012) Access, status, and representation: some reflections from two ethnographic studies of elite schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly43(3): 289–305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01181.x
16.
GilliesVLuceyH (eds) (2007) Power, Knowledge and the Academy: The Institutional is Political. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
GrÿnnerÿdJS (2004) On the meanings and uses of laughter in research interviews: relationships between interviewed men and a woman interviewer. Young: Nordic Journal of Youth Research12(1): 31–49. DOI: 10.1177/1103308804039635
19.
GunesekeraM (2005) The Postcolonial Identity of Sri Lankan English. Colombo: Katha Publishers.
20.
HarveyWS (2010) Methodological approaches for interviewing elites. Geography Compass4(3): 193–205.
HeritageJRaymondG (2005) The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68(1): 15–38.
23.
KoivunenT (2010) Practicing power and gender in the field: learning from interview refusals. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography39(6): 682 –708. DOI: 10.1177/0891241610379015
24.
LadegaardHJ (2009) Pragmatic cooperation revisited: resistance and non-cooperation as a discursive strategy in asymmetrical discourses. Journal of Pragmatics41(4): 649–666. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.021
25.
MauranenA (2002) “A good question”: expressing evaluation in academic speech. In: CorteseGRileyP (eds) Domain-Specific English: Textual Practices Across Communities and Classrooms. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 115–140.
26.
MerriamSBJohnson-BaileyJLeeM-Y, et al. (2001) Power and positionality: negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education20(5): 405–416. DOI: 10.1080/02601370120490
27.
MoltmannF (2010) Generalizing detached self-reference and the semantics of generic one. Mind & Language25(4): 440–473. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01397.x
28.
NairnKMunroJSmithAB (2005) A counter-narrative of a “failed” interview. Qualitative Research5(2): 221–244.
29.
NeumannE (2011) Negotiating power: interviews with the policy elite - Stories from hungary lost between genres. European Educational Research Journal10(2): 225–232. DOI: 10.2304/eerj.2011.10.2.225
30.
NudzorHP (2013) Interviewing ghanaian educational elites: strategies for access, commitment, and engagement. International Journal of Qualitative Methods12(1): 606–623. DOI: 10.1177/160940691301200132
31.
OstranderSA (1993) “Surely you’re not in this just to be helpful”: access, rapport, and interviews in three studies of elites. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography22(1): 7–27.
32.
OsvaldssonK (2004) On laughter and disagreement in multiparty assessment talk. Text24(4): 517–545.
33.
PereraK (2020) The interview as an opportunity for participant reflexivity. Qualitative Research20(2): 143–159.
34.
PomerantzA (1986) Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9(2–3): 219–229. DOI: 10.1007/BF00148128
35.
RapleyTJ (2001) The artful(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research1(3): 303–323.
36.
RiceG (2010) Reflections on interviewing elites. Area42(1): 70–75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00898.x
37.
RoblesJSHoEY (2014) Interactional formats and institutional context: a practical and exploitable distinction in interviews. Text and Talk34(4): 443–465. DOI: 10.1515/text-2014-0011
38.
SacksH (2004) An initial characterization of the organization of speaker turn-taking in conversation. In: LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 35–42.
39.
SchegloffEA (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society29(1): 1–63. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168983.
40.
SchegloffEA (2002) Accounts of conduct in interaction: interruption, overlap, and turn-taking. In: TurnerJH (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory 2. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 287–321.
41.
ThoradeniyaD (2018) “Medical doctors do not accept any refreshment from us”: oral history interviews in a medical setting in Sri Lanka. The Oral History Review 45(2): 265–287. DOI: 10.1093/ohr/ohy032
42.
TracyKRoblesJS (2010) Challenges of interviewers’ institutional positionings: taking account of interview content and the interaction. Communication Methods and Measures4(3): 177–200. DOI: 10.1080/19312458.2010.505501
