Critical reflections on performing the dramaturgy in research interviews

Abstract

Performing an interview can be perceived as a straightforward method for eliciting information from interviewees in response to an interviewer's predetermined questions. However, because interviews involve human interaction, the process is often more intricate than merely asking and answering questions. Utilising Goffman's metaphor of social interaction as performance, conducting interviews can be viewed as a form of dramaturgy that unfolds between the interviewer and the interviewee. This research note critically reflects on two interviews, highlighting how nuanced realities may disrupt the ‘theatrical’ performance of the interview, which posits that backstage and frontstage are well-prepared. The first author's performativity, which encompassed aspects that intersect with the interviewer's positionality and status as both an insider and outsider during the interview process, resembles impromptu dramaturgy. This research note concludes that conducting interviews, as a method of knowledge formation, incorporates aspects of the social and cultural context of all the individuals involved.

Introduction

In essence, an interview can be seen as a mere communication between two people (Bano et al., 2019), a straightforward exchange of information or ideas through questions and responses. However, as Smillie (1991) argues, an interview can be much more than this. Semi-structured interviews are the most widely used interviewing format for qualitative research (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006; Riach, 2009; Rowley, 2012). When conducting interviews, the researcher enters the interviewee's world. Therefore, in face-to-face interviews, facial and body cues, alongside spoken responses, may assist the researcher in fully comprehending the interviewee's experiences (Vogl, 2013). Rubin and Rubin (2012) state that an interviewer's style should be minimally confrontational, non-threatening, and friendly. The interviewer should not interrogate or press the interviewees, and the environment should be comfortable and safe for the interviewee (Rubin and Rubin, 2012; Smillie, 1991). Thus, to be a good interviewer, one should be an attentive listener, allow the interviewee to speak, and refrain from evaluating their responses (Fontana and Frey, 2005; McGrath et al., 2019).

As researchers, we are also taught that interviews and interviewees should be kept on-topic (Brounéus, 2011). Here, the role of an interviewer can begin to be seen as one of facilitating a semi-controlled conversation. This is one aspect of interviews that makes them very different from everyday, casual, ad-hoc conversations. That said, interviews, especially conversational semi-structured interviews, straddle the lines between formality/informality and interview/conversation. In turn, both interviewer and interviewee enter a sort of ‘in-between’ space, where perceived roles and identities can be blurred. By allowing flexibility in performing roles, researchers can gain more detailed and insightful data when entering an interview stage. However, what does this look like in practice? The remainder of this research note unpacks my (first author) experiences of conducting face-to-face semi-structured interviews and explores the fluid and dynamic roles of interviewer and interviewee. The second and third authors acted as constructively critical voices in the research note and throughout the research project on which it is based (Wright and Adam, 2015). Writing this research note helps me to be reflexive as a researcher and interviewer, to become self-aware in the process and to understand the often-hidden meanings within research. Despite this, for some, talking about oneself may seem uncomfortable, narcissistic, and tiresome (Pillow, 2003). By reflecting on two interviews, this research note examines how nuanced realities in everyday life can disrupt the theatrical nature of the interview. In so doing, this research note examines the dynamics of positionalities of all interviewer and interviewees.

Preparing for the ‘stage’

This research critically analyses the dynamics of the sharing economy as it pertains to OYO Rooms (similar to Airbnb) in Bali, questioning the authenticity of the ‘sharing’ relationship between the Virtual Hotel Operator (VHO) and accommodation providers in this specific context. Bali was chosen as the location of the study because it is one of the largest OYO Rooms markets in Indonesia (OYO, 2022). The categories of participants included in this research are individuals who have worked or currently work for OYO Rooms (category A), individuals working at an accommodation presently or previously responsible for developing and/or managing the partnership with OYO Rooms in Bali (category B), and individuals who are religious leaders or whose interests are in Balinese culture (Category C). I employed mixed snowball sampling and general purposive sampling to recruit participants. 42 interviews were conducted over 7 months, from December 2023 to July 2024 (I was unable to conduct interviews in March 2024 due to cultural events taking places). Whilst conducting interviews, I mainly used my national language, Bahasa Indonesia, but also the Balinese local dialect for some terms. English was also used in the interviews to emphasise certain terms, such as sharing economy, where there is no exact term in Bahasa Indonesia.

Prior to conducting semi-structured interviews, I learned about how to do so by reading various textbooks that describe what a researcher should and should not do during an interview (Bano et al., 2019; Bolderston, 2012). I felt confident about entering the field, as I had thoroughly prepared by completing the university's ethics application and consulting various textbooks (Adams, 2015; Brounéus, 2011) to guide my research journey. However, on entering the field, it quickly transformed into a stage for me as an interviewer. I recognised that, beneath my role as interviewer, I was influenced by various factors that shaped how I conducted the interviews and how my interviewees performed in their roles.

To help explain the practice of performing interviews, I borrow Goffman's metaphor of dramaturgy. Goffman portrayed social life as a theatrical performance where individuals present themselves and their actions in a manner that controls the impression they create for their audience while sustaining their performance (Goffman, 1959). He described the stage as the place where individuals reveal their frontstage character, which is also shaped by their interactions with other players. Consequently, the individual embodies a real self backstage, while the character displayed on stage represents their frontstage persona. This distinction between frontstage and backstage identity is influenced by the environment surrounding the characters and the perceptions of their audience (Goffman, 1959).

Speaking about the frontstage, according to Goffman (1959), face, settings, manners, and appearances, are pictures of a social construct of regulatory norms surrounding the actor (Moore, 2017), or in this case, the interviewer. Later in the paper, I describe how my performances were influenced by social norms and values adopted and imposed upon me in Bali. Goffman's concept of face is defined as a social value that an individual asserts for themselves or by the stance others believe they have taken during a specific interaction (Moore, 2017). Settings, which can include décor, physical layout, and other backgrounds, supply the scenery and stage props for human action to play out (Goffman, 1959). Goffman (1959) explained manners as the interactive role the performer expects to play in a situation. Appearances are referred to as stimuli that function at the moment to reveal a performer's social status (Goffman, 1959). In the context of interviewing, the frontstage is for formal performances, no matter how informal they may appear to be, and close interaction with the interviewees, where interview etiquette, in all its nuanced meanings, is carefully adhered to (Chen, 2018). In contrast, the backstage area serves as a space for the performer-as-interviewer-to relax and prepare, where masks can be removed and personal identities displayed (Chen, 2018).

Goffman (1959) describes transitions between frontstage and backstage as somewhat deliberate, planned, and rehearsed. However, my experience in the field showed me that these transitions are not always – or perhaps can never be – consciously planned but are instead always emergent and dependent upon cultural expectations, and emotional responses. I suggest that such moments represent a more fluid and situationally responsive form of performance, which I describe as ‘impromptu dramaturgy’. In this sense, my experiences offer a more nuanced framing of Goffman's theory by foregrounding the unpredictable nature of qualitative fieldwork.

Considering how the front and backstage impacted how the interviews were conducted, my positionality as an interviewer is a result of managing an impression of being a good interviewer (at least according to the textbook definitions I read before going to the field). In accordance with Goffman's metaphor of dramaturgy, I was aware of selecting some aspects of my performance to prepare for the stage. Subsequently, my approach to interviewing was also shaped (un)consciously by cultural and religious norms applied in Indonesia and Bali. The distinction between front and backstage is somewhat based on deliberate design, but it is also crucial to recognise that it includes ingrained behaviour and implicit kinds of knowledge (Ringel, 2019). This behaviour and knowledge were shaped by how I was raised, how I interacted with my surrounding environment, and my daily activities.

As part of pre-interviews, I introduced myself as a doctoral student and a lecturer during the initial contact with the prospective interviewees. I did this consciously to prepare my face and appearance as an interviewer. Goffman (1959) stated that individuals generally acquire information about someone when they first meet and that first impressions count. I felt that by introducing myself as a lecturer, the prospective participants may be more willing to take part in an interview. I felt this way because I considered that my job as a lecturer would provide me with credibility in the eyes of participants, thus offering some guarantee that I would conduct the interviews professionally and ethically. However, I was also concerned that by introducing myself as a lecturer, participants might have preconceptions of what a lecturer is, making them feel like they were being evaluated or judged (Rubin and Rubin, 2012).

Therefore, I hoped that by introducing myself as a student, the prospective participants would see their involvement as an opportunity to enhance education and not feel judged or evaluated. In preparing my appearances and frontstage for the interviews, I consciously structured my attire to manage the impression of my interviewees. Myers and Newman (2007) described the importance of good first impressions in interviews, a view supported by Adams (2015), who stressed dressing ‘professionally’ as a route to achieving this. Hence, I managed my appearances as a university student and lecturer hybrid by wearing light make-up, long pants or jeans, and a collared shirt. I felt comfortable presenting myself to the interviewees by choosing this attire, comfort being an important part of all performances. I chose those kinds of attire since I was influenced by my background as a lecturer in a tourism and hospitality school in Bali. Furthermore, I equipped myself with a notebook, pen, laptop, and audio recorder during the interviews to appear and be an interviewer.

According to the rules of conduct at my tourism and hospitality school in Bali, a lecturer is required to dress professionally when teaching. For example, I should wear a blazer, a collared shirt, black leather-like loafers, and have my hair neatly styled. It is important that all these elements are clean and tidy. This dress code applies not only to lecturers but also to students. Since I am a student at a university in a Western country, there are no specific rules of conduct about dress when on campus. These two background identities, as a lecturer and as a student, influenced how I managed my face and appearance as my frontstage before conducting the interviews in order to convince the interviewee and convince myself that I was playing these roles, as well as the one of an interviewer. Looking at my background identities, as an Indonesian and Balinese, I consider good manners, such as positive politeness, on the face for my frontstage, a necessity. By presenting these manners during the interviews, I hoped that I could build rapport with the interviewees. Generally speaking, politeness in Indonesia in general and Bali, in particular, means adherence to social norms and rules, courtesy to relatives and strangers, and manners such as body posture, for instance, when sitting (Wiryomartono, 2020). As a Balinese Hindu, I was taught the philosophy of Tri Hita Karana, which relates to maintaining a harmonious relationship between humans through three elements, namely, God and/or the spiritual world, the human world, and the natural world (Adityanandana and Gerber, 2019; Peters and Wardana, 2014). Hence, I have been trained since birth in Bali to maintain harmonious communication with the interviewees and to be less interruptive when conducting interviews. Without directly showing my backstage character as a Balinese, my backstage characters were connected with my frontstage as an interviewer. In this way, being an insider not only potentially aided my access to and understanding of participants but also shaped my interviews and consequently, potentially, the nature of the material garnered through the interviews. An insider status means when the researcher shares at least some similar identities with the participants, while an outsider refers to a lack of such shared identities (Clarke and Braun, 2013). An important point to remember here is that insider-outsider is not a binary, but a relational issue based on the perception of all participants (i.e., researcher and researched). In relation to my insider status as a Balinese, when setting the interviews with potential participants, I made an effort to avoid scheduling them on days that coincide with Balinese ceremonies and events, since I am familiar with these dates and their significance.

My insider and outsider status intersect with my positionalities and my backstage self. As a native Balinese, I was an insider with most participants. However, as a student in New Zealand, I perceived myself as an outsider during the interviews. As I entered the field, I realised my identities as insider and/or outsider are dynamic and situational (Mason-Bish, 2019). These statuses are constantly shifting as they are multidimensional, influenced by how the researchers perceive their own positionality, how participants perceive the researcher's positionality, and the researcher’s actual positionality (Bukamal, 2022). The concepts of insider and outsider status during the interviews can be likened to the ideas of frontstage and backstage, which are separated but interconnected in the realities (Ringel, 2019). Reflecting on performing interviews in the field, I recognise that my frontstage and backstage selves intersect with my positionalities as insider and outsider influenced my performance in interviews as well as my analysis of the interviews.

Performing on the ‘stage’

I draw on my experiences of interviewing Mary and Andy (pseudonyms) for my study, to critically analyse key aspects of my performances that tangled with my positionality and my insider and outsider statuses. I found that just like me, interviewees connected their frontstage roles as participants to their backstage personas. Those aspects influenced their performances as well as my performances.

In my initial contact with Mary, she mentioned multiple roles that made her time tight. She said she is a working mom, an entrepreneur, and a single parent. During the interview, I asked her why she was willing to participate in this study despite her limited time. She noted that she tried to understand my position as a lecturer and a student doing research, even though she said that she was fatigued and needed rest during the interview. Since she mentioned the reason for her participation despite her challenges, I attempted to perform as a good interviewer by asking her questions and listening to her responses. Consequently, she performed as an interviewee by addressing my questions and sharing her stories.

She shared stories about her abusive relationship, and I was afraid that her stories would not address my predetermined questions. Simultaneously, I needed to comprehend her role as a mother and establish a friendly rapport to help gather information, all while acknowledging my position as a stranger to her but an insider member of her brought sociocultural background. I was unprepared to listen to her personal stories and be her friend. Drawn into that situation, I felt that befriending Mary may be considered unethical because I performed a faked friendship to gain knowledge (Duncombe and Jessop, 2002). However, I was in a dilemma regarding self-presentation (Hermanns, 2004). According to the textbook definitions, I was a good interviewer, but I felt like I was faking a friendship with Mary. I attempted to be an insider for Mary, given our shared position as mothers. I perceived my position as an interviewer, which I considered of an outsider when Mary shared her stories, might cause Mary discomfort if I interrupted her stories. Despite probing questions to keep her ‘on-topic’, as suggested by Brounéus (2011), I let Mary continue her stories with me. My position as a mother and a woman influenced me to sympathise with her story. At the end of the interview with Mary, I realised that I had become her friend. Someone who gave her a safe and comfortable place in which to talk about her experiences. Later, when I revisited the interview recording, I realised I had obtained valuable stories from her by giving flexible shifts on frontstage and backstage. Navigating different positionalities during the interview from that of an interviewer and stranger to that of a fellow mother and a friend, enable me to listen to her story without interrupting her with any follow-up questions as I planned before interviewing. For instance, when Mary recounted her experiences as a mother caring for her children when her children were ill, she engaged me by asking if I had similar experiences with my kids. Embracing the roles of both a friend and a fellow mother allowed me to sense a safe and understanding environment, enabling me to truly grasp her stories and perspectives during the interview. I would revert to my role as an interviewer at opportune moments to ask questions.

Performing an interview with Andy, who is a respected religious leader in the Balinese community, was a different story. Religious leaders in Bali are seen as knowledgeable people, and regarding the caste system that is still practised in Bali, religious leaders are always positioned at the top of the social structure. This reverence influenced my approach during the interview, prompting me to be even thoughtful than with the other interviews in my preparation. Instead of adopting a typical professional interviewer's attire (as noted above) like I did while interviewing Mary, I deliberately chose to wear a casual traditional Balinese outfit for my meeting with Andy. This ensemble consisted of a t-shirt paired with a fabric wrap for the lower body. Between the t-shirt and the fabric, I wore a shawl tied in the middle. This kind of casual traditional Balinese outfit is commonly worn during cultural events. I wanted to be comfortable so as to be able to focus on the interview without feeling distracted because I wore the wrong outfit. I met Andy in his traditional house where he practises the Balinese Hinduism ceremonies. In line with the local customs in Bali, it is customary to wear traditional attire when visiting a religious leader at his home.

Embracing my Balinese identity throughout the interview, I maintained a kneeling position to demonstrate respect while speaking with Andy. This behaviour was in accordance with the Balinese customs observed at traditional religious gatherings. I was thoughtful about my choice of words, ensuring my questions did not come across as confrontational or dismissive of his experiences. I presented gestures as an insider and showed this character as my frontstage. While my insider knowledge clearly informed my construction of the interview, I felt constrained in my ability to inquire during it, as I was burdened by my perception of being good in front of a religious leader. Being good in this context related to adhering to local norms that suggest not asking too many questions of a religious leader, as it might be considered as catechising of a wiseman. In doing so, I tried to avoid interrupting him while he responded to my inquiries. This nervousness made me feel the need to position myself beneath his authority. I recognised the existence of power dynamics between Andy and me. Unequal power relationships between Andy and me were formed by age differences and inherited local values that emphasised respecting the elderly and religious leaders. Moreover, as Andy's position as a religious leader and my informant combined with my position as a student exposed me to being dependent on Andy's knowledge, which made me feel less powerful than Andy. Local values and norms also view students as being dependent on teachers, a label I assigned to Andy as an informant and religious leader. This put me in a lower position during the interviews. Thus, an interview is an inevitably hierarchical encounter (Kvale, 1996). Recognising myself as a student kept me flooded with information but waiting for the right chance to ask questions without being perceived as impolite.

Upon reflecting on these two performances, it became clear that I could not always control my frontstage presentation. I was often influenced, consciously and unconsciously, by my backstage character, which intersects with my positionalities as insider and outsider of the interviewees. Throughout the interviews, analysing them, and the writing of this research note, I recognised that becoming an interviewer needs to remain flexible, deciding whether to adopt an outsider perspective or shift to an insider role, or some hybrid of the two, depending on the circumstances at hand.

Writing this research note compelled me to critically examine the authenticity of my performances during my interviews. Although the term authenticity is highly contested, it is linked with honesty, trustworthiness, and credibility (Gershon and Smith, 2020) regarding my self-presentation in performing the interviews. As I conducted interviews, I consciously performed as an interviewer and deliberately selected my frontstage and backstage characters. I attempted to follow the suggestion to be a good interviewer by not interrupting the participants. However, I found this suggestion confusing when it has also been suggested that utilising probing questions to keep the participants on-topic is an important tool (Brounéus, 2011).

I did not specifically rehearse my performance prior to conducting the interviews. I rely on the nature of semi-structured interviews, allowing flexibility for both myself and the interviewees. Andy had prepared several responses concerning the definitions of sharing based on Balinese Hinduism that he intended to discuss during the interview. Despite this preparation, the interview was still flexible. I noticed this when, after he addressed a question, I paused to consider a follow-up and allowed the silence to fill our discussion. In contrast, during a scripted drama, Andy and I would have been familiar with both the questions and answers, which likely would have eliminated pauses during the interviews. I performed myself authentically, showcasing my front and backstage elements, just as Andy did. Likewise, in the interview with Mary, I did not rehearse to anticipate her performance as both a mother and a woman during the interview. I decided spontaneously during the interview to consciously position myself as a mother and a woman to interact with her and obtain deeper insights. Thus, I draw upon Goffman's metaphor of impromptu dramaturgy in the context of conducting interviews since I could not anticipate the interviewees’ responses.

Suwankhong and Liamputtong (2015) highlight how insider researchers may experience emotional conflict when navigating fluid positionalities in the field, particularly in moments where cultural familiarity intersects with research responsibilities. My experiences with Mary and Andy similarly revealed that insider status can prompt spontaneous shifts in performance that are not always deliberately planned but are nonetheless deeply meaningful and impactful. Such reflection further illustrates how qualitative interviews can manifest as ‘impromptu dramaturgy’.

Conclusion

Despite what is often presented in research methods textbooks (e.g., Bolderston, 2012) performing semi-structured interviews is not simply a straightforward dialogue or a conversation meant to gather data from interviewees. Instead, it can be likened to an impromptu dramaturgy performed by strangers when they first meet but who begin to get to know one another as the interview unfolds. The roles of these people extend beyond interviewer and interviewee. In the case of the study on which this paper is based, being a lecturer, student, woman, mother, and Balinese, enabled the performance of the interviewer in ways that depended on the nature of the interviewee and their interactions with the interviewer. The result was an interactional performativity that was unique to each interview. Reflecting on two interviews in the field, this research note critically analyses the implications of performing interviews as an ‘impromptu dramaturgy’, which included positionality and insider and outsider status of the interviewer and interviewees. Those aspects in performing interviews, such as backstage and frontstage character, intersect with the constantly shifting positionality and statuses of the interviewer and interviewees. By exploring the emotional and cultural entanglements of conducting interviews as both an insider and outsider, my reflections provide a more flexible interpretation of Goffman's dramaturgical metaphor. Here, impromptu dramaturgy captures the reflexive, situated, and at times ethically ambiguous performances that ultimately characterise the lived experiences of conducting interviews.

This research note argues that focusing on textbook definitions of interviewing can constrain the fluidity of positionalities inherent in researchers, limiting their ability to fully engage with the insights of interviewees. I suggest that researchers need to be flexible and open when performing interviews in the field. I have recognised that my style in performing the interviews is shaped by my personal character, including in front and backstage, as every researcher has their own unique approach. Consequently, when I was too reliant on textbooks (Bolderston, 2012; Brounéus, 2011) or too structured with my planning before going into the field, I might have interrupted the interviews with Mary and Andy, which would have potentially missed the opportunity to listen to their genuine stories. Therefore, through reflexivity, I learned that conducting interviews is a complex and dynamic process that involves many aspects embedded in both the interviewer and the interviewees. The different roles of the interviewer and the interviewee have been shaped by their social and cultural identities, which are constantly evolving and dynamic. These identities form the basis for addressing the research topic in the interview, both in terms of what is said and heard, and how it is all influenced. Hence, interpreting the interview results requires recognising the broader context related to the constructed identities of all interviewers and interviewees. My reflexivity is based solely on my perceptions of my positionalities during the interviews. It would be beneficial for future studies to reflect further on how the participants’ perceptions may influence their ability to establish rapport in the interviews. I view fieldwork as not only a process of investigating the study but also exploring my relationship to the research. This reflexivity also offers a chance to revisit what was recorded but not truly listened to during interviews.