The Elephant in the Room-Recording Devices and Trust in Narrative Interviewing

Abstract

Narrative interviewing is a commonly utilized methodology, and the conventional practice of documenting interviews through audio-technical recording is seldom challenged. However, based on interviews conducted with mothers receiving basic income support, this paper demonstrates that recording devices may engender a lack of trust on the interviewee’s part. Such mistrust can impede the achievement of the methodological goals of narrative interviewing, which include eliciting rich, profound, and authentic narratives. This effect can be attributed to both the social and physical characteristics of the recording device itself, which interact with issues related to intimacy, deviancy, sanctionability, or the social undesirability of the interviewees’ attitudes or behaviors. This mistrust often becomes apparent through signs of discomfort exhibited by the interviewees – akin to the metaphorical ‘elephant in the room’. It can also manifest as extensive and in-depth conversations occurring before and after the recorded portion of the field interaction or through non-verbal signals indicating a desire to interrupt the recording. To address this restrictive effect, four strategies are suggested: (1) Conducting an evaluation of trust risks before planning the fieldwork; (2) Expanding trust-building measures during the interview situation, possibly including sharing control over the recording device with the interviewee; (3) Viewing the entire research interaction as a document in itself; and (4) Exploring supplementary or alternative documentation techniques beyond audio recording.

Recorder Effects in Narrative Interviewing

Non-standardized interviewing is a crucial methodology for gathering narratives in vulnerable situations or addressing sensitive topics across various research fields, including sociology, social work, nursing, and medicine (Silverio et al., 2022). Although audio recording has long been established as a standard documentation practice in such research, its impact on the research interaction remains inadequately understood. Qualitative researchers recognize that recording devices are not simply “transparent windows” into social reality (Mondada, 2009, p. 67). Scholars like Labov (1972), later joined by Caronia (2015) and Nordstrom (2015), advocate for viewing recording devices as active agents that shape the activity setting and influence what is deemed significant and what is excluded from consideration. These devices function as scientific tools and exert considerable influence on research interactions and the trust-building process.

In research settings where sensitive topics can trigger emotional challenges, carry stigmas, taboos, or even legal implications, the presence of a recording device significantly impacts respondents’ willingness to participate (Al-Yateem, 2012; Rubin & Rubin, 2005; Rutakumwa et al., 2020). While researchers have explored the authenticity and credibility of data influenced by such devices (Labov, 1972), limited attention has been given to fully understanding the precise nature of this influence, its underlying processes, and its connection to recording technologies or material objects (Speer & Hutchby, 2003).

During our field research ¹ with mothers receiving welfare benefits and caring for small children, we observed that our recording device ² , which resembled a mouse, took on significant prominence, much like the metaphorical ‘elephant in the room’. Participants frequently underscored or sidestepped sensitive topics through their speech patterns and nonverbal cues while under recording, including gestures, facial expressions, and intonation. It became apparent that while discussing challenging subjects was not inherently problematic for the women we interviewed, the act of being recorded induced a distinct sense of discomfort.

Epistemologically, we view interviews not merely as textual artifacts but as situated practices in which meaning is collaboratively generated and negotiated by both interviewers and interviewees. This perspective is consistent with the acknowledgment that interviews are interactive events influenced by processes, intentions, and pragmatic structures (Silverman, 2011; Deppermann, 2013). Nevertheless, these interactive concepts of interviewing frequently overlook the role of material objects, in our case, recording devices, in shaping the dynamics of interview interactions.

Building upon concepts from Heidegger (1996), Latour (1993), and Gibson (2014), we propose that objects should not be seen solely as inanimate items or artifacts but as possessing both material and symbolic properties that shape our behaviors. Consequently, we aim to scrutinize our interactions with the recording device, along with the intricate interpersonal and contextual entanglements, to attain a more profound comprehension of how the recording device impacts the interview situation.

In the next section we will present case study materials to illustrate the complex dynamics between participants, researchers, and the recording device. These cases will demonstrate that specific changes in interaction occur when the recording device is set up and activated or when it garners renewed attention during conversations touching upon sensitive topics while being recorded.

Drawing upon these cases and relevant literature, we will identify and explore trust issues as a primary underlying factor contributing to these changes in respondent behavior and interview interactions associated with the recorder in the subsequent chapter. Following this, we will offer suggestions for reevaluating current recording procedures and enhancing future research practices to make them more sensible and mitigate any negative effects. Finally we will summarize our conclusions and acknowledge the limitations of our findings.

Case Examples for Recorder Effects in Narrative Interviewing

The following case descriptions are derived from data ³ collected between 2021 and 2022, when we conducted research on the circumstances, experiences, and interactions with job centers of mothers with children under the age of three within the German basic income support system. Challenges encountered during the research process stemmed from the constantly evolving COVID-19 regulations at that time, as well as difficulties in locating and engaging participants who were caring for young children, language barriers, and the precarious life situation associated with poverty and dependence on state benefits.

Participants were primarily recruited through job centers, personal networks of interviewers and interviewees, and civil society organizations. The interviews centered on the women’s life journeys, their present daily routines, viewpoints on motherhood and employment, and encounters with job center personnel. Research interactions occurred at venues selected by the participants, including public spaces like parks, playgrounds, cafes, or their residences.

The following examples illustrate the unease brought about by the introduction, setup, and operation of the recording device, which seemed to permeate the room like a metaphorical, unseen elephant. These examples also shed light on how interviewees respond or adjust their narrative and non-narrative behaviors in the presence of the device, as well as how interviewers react.

Performing a Play

At the time of the interview, Ricarda was in her late 20s, pursuing full-time training as a care worker while also attending an advanced German language course. She resided with her partner and two young children. Financial constraints necessitated her reliance on basic income support, as her trainee salary proved insufficient, and her partner was unable to work due to the absence of an immigrant work permit.

In the afternoon, I ⁴ visited Ricarda at her apartment located on a noisy main street. Despite having just returned from work, she had welcomingly set the table with juice and sweets. Ricarda was expressive, using gestures and laughing frequently. Before we began recording, we discussed administrative matters, including the anonymization of her interview. During this conversation, she displayed an exaggeratedly serious expression, sat up straight on the sofa, nodded in understanding, and then laughed again before relaxing into the back of the sofa. It was clear that she enjoyed spending time with me and sharing her perspective.

Throughout our conversation, Ricarda not only engaged with me but also interacted with the recording device in a unique manner compared to previous interviewees. The recording device was placed between us on the sofa. Whenever Ricarda wanted to discuss a sensitive topic, like something forbidden or discouraged by the welfare authority, she would speak in a whisper, covering her mouth to shield it from the recorder, while also looking at the device and winking at me. Conversely, she would speak more loudly when talking about something she assumes to be desired by the authorities.

During the interview, at a certain moment, I asked Ricarda if she had a message for politicians and the job center. I also invited her to share any suggestions on how the institution could improve. It was at this point that her demeanor gradually shifted, and she directed her words solely towards me. She expressed thoughtful criticism and shared her perspectives on issues related to basic security and the functioning of the job center. ⁵

Ricarda stood out as the sole interviewee who engaged in a performative interaction, using gestures, postures, and body language to highlight sensitive or particularly confidential information. It was almost as if the job center itself were present at the table, symbolized by the recording device. Playfully, Ricarda whispered about this additional “actor”, treating me as an ally. She openly praised certain aspects, directing her words toward the recording device (see also Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 100). This playfulness exhibited a blend of seriousness and amusement, given that the topics under discussion dwelled in the delicate realm between legality and illegality, gratitude, and criticism of the system. Ricarda’s trust in the situation rendered her vulnerable, even as she strove to retain control over her confidential matters throughout this performance. When invited to voice her criticisms of the system with the aim of improvement, she began to use the recorder as a conduit for her message.

The recording device, equipped with its inherent technical capabilities for recording and reproducing voices and sounds, falls short of fully capturing the ambiance of the conversation. It also possesses the capacity, supported by its technical prowess, to transfer and reproduce the recorded content in a different context, thereby potentially reaching additional audiences beyond the interviewer-listener (see also Bell, 1984; Wilson, 1994). This extension of potential audiences, distinct from the trustful interview setting, could transcend temporal or spatial boundaries.

In Ricarda’s case, the recording device represents an audience that is absent but imagined, stemming from a formal and institutional context, while the interviewer serves as a trusted personal audience. Consequently, Ricarda enacts a dual-sided performance, visible to the trusted audience in its entirety, while the absent audience can only perceive one facet. In conclusion, during an interview, the recording device can symbolize the presence of absent third parties, a public audience, or an institution (see also Gordon, 2012, p. 314), and consciously playing to these dual audiences can be one strategy for managing this complex dynamic.

Eliciting Memories on Trauma

Veronika, who was in her mid-forties and a single parent with three children, had experienced her first period of unemployment when I met her.

I met Veronika in a quiet park on the outskirts of the city in the morning, away from the presence of her children. We engaged in some friendly small talk about the city as we searched for a bench to sit on. Due to our ongoing conversation, it took me a bit of time to retrieve the recording device from my pocket and introduce it. Seeing this, she informed me that she was familiar with the usage of the device, as she had been involved in a criminal investigation of a family tragedy in the past. During the interview, she told me that about a year ago, she had found her son dead in his room. Since that devastating event, she had endured numerous interrogations. Despite our previous conversation had been on a different subject, Veronika felt compelled to recount the details surrounding the discovery of her son’s lifeless body, including potential causes of death, the gossip circulating among neighbors, and her conflicting feelings of guilt and innocence. After she concluded her narrative, I was deeply moved and overwhelmed by the emotional weight of her experience. We sat together on the park bench, sharing a brief moment of embrace, as I tried to hold back my tears. ⁶

In Veronika’s case, the presence of the recording device had a distinct effect compared to the other conversations. Instead of impeding the discussion of sensitive topics, it actually encouraged her to share her experiences more openly. The device served as a catalyst, triggering recollections of significant past events involving a similar device. This had both positive and negative outcomes. On the one hand, it facilitated a deeper exploration of a severe crisis, shedding light on Veronika’s innocence, her struggle against accusations, and her coping mechanisms. On the other hand, it carried the risk of re-traumatization and re-victimization, which could potentially undermine our objective of conducting sensitive and open interviews. Nevertheless, we believe that the overall impact in this specific case was relatively mild.

As the interview progressed, the influence of the device underwent a transformation. The empathetic response that followed Veronika’s narrative could be interpreted as an attempt to reframe the interaction, reminding her of the positive nature of our connection and the potential for a more personal and empathic exchange beyond the confines of a typical interviewee-interviewer setting.

Interrupting the Recording

Paula, in her late 30s, had taken a year off from work to be with her baby at the time of the interview. She worked as an artist and occasionally received basic income support during periods when she didn’t have paid engagements.

We had our conversation in a café, without Paula’s baby. We ordered coffee and cake, and Paula seemed relaxed as she sat wrapped in a blanket. When I asked her about her living situation, she paused for a moment, looked at me seriously and expectantly, and gestured towards the recorder. It was clear to me that I should turn off the device. In response to my question, Paula explained that there were two versions of her story: one that was true and another one tailored to meet the expectations of the job center. She shared that her alternative living arrangements did not align with the job center’s understanding of a household in need, so she had crafted a simplified narrative to satisfy the welfare authorities. She expressed concern that if her story were to be published, the authorities would easily identify her due to specific details of her case. After assuring her that I would anonymize the information and offering to share the document with her before publishing, I asked if I could turn the recorder back on. Paula agreed, and I turned it on again. However, she chose to remain silent on that particular question. I respected her decision and moved on to discuss other topics. Throughout our conversation, Paula spoke openly and reflectively about the mutual distrust between the job center and individuals reliant on benefits. She shared her critical perspectives on the social and behavioral control exerted by the job center on its clients. ⁷

Paula distinguished herself among the interviewees by non-verbally signaling her preference for the recording device to be turned off. She voiced concerns regarding the adequacy of anonymization and how the researchers would handle the recorded conversations and transcripts. Paula demonstrated a forward-thinking approach, evaluating potential risks associated with the technology. She acknowledged that the recording device gave spoken words a tangible presence, which heightened the need for careful word choice, especially compared to casual conversations. Paula’s apprehension about her words potentially being disclosed to the job center was evident. Trust in the interview process extended beyond the interviewer and encompassed trust in institutions as well. The introduction of power dynamics by the device in a “professional interview” context could influence relational dynamics, and not everyone readily embraced it in all situations. However, setting boundaries in such sensitive interactions was challenging for many people (see also Haile et al., 2020), as became evident in the subsequent case.

Concealing and Silencing

Hanna, in her mid-30s and a mother of three, holds a specialized professional position that requires her to commute for several hours each week. During this time, her partner was on parental leave. Due to their earned income falling short of their expenses, Hanna and her family rely on additional welfare benefits to make ends meet.

Hanna proposed to meet at a spacious green park in the city center for the interview, and she brought along her children and partner. When I retrieved the recording device from my bag and showed it to them, I noticed a momentary unease from Hanna, although she did not express it overtly. Sensing her discomfort, I reassured her that she could trust me to maintain anonymity for everything she shared. She nodded in agreement. I turned on the device and positioned it on the blanket beside me. After obtaining her consent, Hanna began speaking in response to my introductory question. However, she consistently kept her gaze fixed on the device, occasionally casting suspicious or rejecting glances towards it. While answering certain questions, she would conclude her explanations by directing her gaze at the device. During the interview, Hanna refrained from disclosing the specific reason for the failure of her planned career advancement. After more than an hour, as one of her children began to show signs of fatigue, I expressed gratitude for the interview and turned off the recorder. However, Hanna showed no indication of leaving and instead expressed a desire to continue the conversation. She disclosed that she suffers from an incurable disease, which significantly complicates her ability to plan for the future or pursue any career aspirations. ⁸

Hanna’s attention repeatedly gravitated towards the recording device during her remarks, although she did not explicitly convey her discomfort through words or gestures. Unlike Paula, however, Hanna chose not to interrupt the conversation, and I hesitated to immediately turn off the device upon sensing her unease. It was only during the subsequent off-the-record conversation that Hanna felt comfortable explaining her situation once again. This additional conversation proved crucial for understanding Hanna’s case. She regards her illness as a private matter, and her fear of sensitive information potentially being transferred into another social context after the interview reveals a lack of trust in the recording device or the combination of the device and the researcher.

First, this once again underscores the erosion of trust associated with the recording device. Second, and more specifically, given Hanna’s circumstances and conditions, the device’s capability to store and thus substantiate or objectify what was previously a fluid and private verbal exchange between two individuals can potentially result in the transfer of her narrative to a different audience and a different contextual frame. It can transform a private, fluid, and voluntary conversation into something entirely different – public, authority-related, shameful, embarrassing, and possibly subject to sanctions.

Bringing these potential consequences of the small recording device into focus highlights how the activation of the recorder becomes a tipping point in the trust and confidence that both parties intended to maintain during the interview. This transformation necessitates a partially nonverbal interaction sequence to mend the trust and confidence, all while keeping the recorder in a pivotal and critical position throughout the entire interview. In doing so, it establishes a third party in the interaction.

Social Desirability and Post-Interview Talks

Jessica, in her early thirties at the time of the interview, is a mother of five children, with two of them living with their fathers while the others reside with her. Throughout her marriage, she devoted herself to being a homemaker and mother. However, as her relationship came to an end and she encountered financial difficulties, she started taking on various temporary jobs. Following her pregnancy and separation, Jessica promptly applied for basic income support.

Jessica graciously invited me to her apartment, where I was greeted by a beautifully set table in the living room. It was evident that her children were eagerly anticipating my visit. The youngest child even took the initiative to bring me the cookie jar, insisting until I selected a cookie of my choice. During our conversation, Jessica repeatedly expressed her gratitude towards the state authorities for the financial support she and her children receive. She couldn’t understand why some people complain about the level of monetary benefits and declared her satisfaction with her vocational training organized by the job center. Jessica expressed her joy and contentment at finally being able to establish herself and secure a job in the social economy. She expressed a strong desire to work in a field where she could interact with people, care for children, and make a positive impact by helping others. After I turned off the recorder, packed up my belongings, and after mutual expressions of gratitude for the conversation, I found myself standing in the hallway. It was at this moment that the woman asked me if I had Russian roots, noting that my name, “Elena”, sounded Russian. I confirmed this, and it sparked a whole new conversation between us. She shared with me that her mother was originally from the Czech Republic and had immigrated to Germany alone when she was a child. She recounted how her mother used to pick her up from kindergarten every day at noon and spent the entire day with her. She expressed her desire to be a dedicated mother and housewife, just like her own mother had been for Jessica herself. However, she also acknowledged that this perspective may be illusory due to the financial obligations she faces. ⁹

In this case, we can observe a well-documented phenomenon known as the social desirability bias, where individuals tend to withhold certain information or present a more positive version of themselves, especially when discussing sensitive or taboo subjects (see Bergen, 2019). Similarly, Jessica displays this bias by selectively sharing socially desirable information when the recording device is active. The presence of the device creates a formal conversational atmosphere, prompting Jessica to present herself in a manner that conforms to societal expectations regarding motherhood, employment, and interactions with the job center.

As a result, the recording device functions as a constraining factor, impeding open and candid conversation. However, when I turned off the device and prepared to leave, the dynamics of our interaction shifted. It felt as if we were meeting for a second time, but in a more relaxed and informal setting (see also Swain & King, 2022), akin to reintroducing ourselves in a private context.

In conclusion, recording devices have the potential to disrupt and create noticeable interruptions in interviews, as seen in the previous examples, by possibly introducing third parties and other audiences, such as welfare authorities. This can ultimately jeopardize or diminish trust. Furthermore, they can restrict the intimacy and privacy of the conversation, a phenomenon observed in all the interviews discussed here.

However, the recorded portion of the interview with Jessica specifically demonstrates that recording devices can also influence the narrative, promoting conformity and suppressing critical aspects. This underscores the significance of the unrecorded interaction segments, which serve to complement or balance the recorded portions of the interview. As illustrated by the previous interviews, establishing trust before the research interaction and rebuilding trust through authentic actions when necessary are crucial steps in encouraging off-record conversations and gaining a comprehensive understanding.

Audio Recording and Trust in Interview Situations

The issue of trust emerges as a common thread connecting the various experiences and practices of our interviewees during the research interactions. Whether through the enactment of a play, as exemplified by Ricarda, the considerate interventions demonstrated by Paula, the contextual reframing employed by Veronika, or the decision to defer sensitive topics to a post-recording conversation, as practiced by Jessica and Hanna, all of these actions aim to adapt, modify, or redefine the dynamic between the interviewee, the recording device, and the interviewer as they grapple with trust-related challenges.

In these instances, the trust issue, which ideally should have been resolved early in the interaction through effective verbal and non-verbal communication and trust-building, resurfaces as a critical concern when the recording device, operated by the interviewer, takes center stage and becomes pivotal to the interaction’s success. To address the need to restore or stabilize trust following the disruptions caused by the recorder, we first need to delineate the key components of trust in interview situations. Subsequently we will present suggestions on how to effectively address the trust-related challenges stemming from the use of recording devices.

Schilke et al. define trust as “the willingness of an entity (i.e., the trustor) to become vulnerable to another entity (i.e., the trustee). In taking this risk, the trustor presumes that the trustee will act in a way that is conducive to the trustor’s welfare despite the trustee’s actions being outside the trustor’s control” (p. 240). In our research setting, respondents did not exhibit trust issues during unrecorded one-on-one conversations, such as contact talks conducted in post-interview discussions.

However, when confronted with the presence of recording devices, various attempts at asserting control or self-protection became apparent. These manifested through non-verbal cues, interruptions, social desirability responses, or the withholding of information. We hypothesize that the fear of becoming increasingly vulnerable outweighed the positive trust initially established at the outset of the interaction. The question then arises: Why did our interlocutors suddenly feel more vulnerable or less in control?

Technical Properties of the Device as a Source of Trust Problems

The audio recorder, a presence in social research since the 1960s, serves to capture a range of acoustic phenomena, from noise and music to spoken language. To record is to concretize and objectify, enabling the storage and transport of what was once a fleeting, singular audible airwave across space and time. Research on trust in technology commences with a focus on functionality: “(t)rust is the expectation that a device will behave in a particular manner for a specific purpose” (Trusted Computing Group, 2017, p. 10). Researchers utilize and place trust in recording technologies due to their capacity to record, collect, store, and reproduce research data effectively. However, this trust in functionality does not necessarily extend to the study participants.

For the interviewee, divulging sensitive information implies relinquishing control over what was privately said and a diminished ability to deny or review it. In the worst-case scenario, recorded speech may be disclosed to others, causing harm to the recorded person. It is important to note that the recording device, even from a technical perspective, is not isolated but part of a broader system encompassing data recording, storage, transfer, processing, and reprocessing. Trust in the security of this dispersed system is crucial yet challenging to maintain, as it cannot be guaranteed that audio materials will remain entirely protected against unauthorized access at all times. Consequently, the interviewees’ fear and distrust extend beyond the device itself, encompassing the entire technological network responsible for handling recordings and personal data without a guarantee of complete reliability.

The Object´s Symbolic Properties as a Reason for Questioning Trust

We strongly contend that the material and symbolic properties of an object significantly influence each other, particularly in the case of recording devices, and collectively, they have an impact on trust-building in interview interactions. While recording devices may be physically present and culturally accepted as tools in certain professional domains, such as journalism, writing, office work, music, psychology, and science (Patton, 2002, p. 381; Witzel, 2000), they are often merely “quoted” or depicted in literature or on TV when outside of these contexts (see also Gordon, 2012: 315), such as in crime movies, spy novels, and discussions on public surveillance.

Even when people are familiar with recorders as they are portrayed in media, this familiarity is often ambivalent and does not necessarily foster trust. It is crucial not to make a blanket assumption that individuals inherently trust recorders solely because they are acquainted with them (see Wertheim, 2006). Moreover, the recorder, with its well-established ability to capture and convey spoken words across different contexts, symbolically represents a third and unknown audience or party that potentially gains access to the recorded private information. In this way, the symbolic properties of the recorder can contribute to mistrust and fear of exposure.

Trust, Interviewers, and the Control Question

It is indisputable that the majority of participants are cognizant of the underlying intentions and potential ramifications associated with the recording practice. While they express trust in us for the personal interview conversation, they harbor concerns about what might occur if we, as researchers, fail to adhere to our agreement or if we are replaced by other researchers at the behest of our superiors. They often pose questions to themselves and occasionally to us regarding who else might gain access to the recordings and whether their words will remain confidential or potentially become exposed to entities such as the job center, the public, or the media.

However, additional trust issues arise in the context of the interviewer-recorder combination when we move beyond the notion of the recording device as a simple technical tool we bring along. Like all things, it is an action (Barad, 2013), a performance (Pickering, 2010), “emerging from the interplay of humans and non-humans” (Woodward, 2020, p. 20). The interviewee has limited control over this action, with the ability to stop talking being their primary recourse, while the usage is primarily predetermined and controlled by the researcher.

Even if the interviewer is considerate enough to inform the interviewee at the outset that they can request to stop or switch off the device at any time, the decision ultimately rests with the interviewer, and the interviewee must summon the courage to express such a request. Furthermore, even if individuals like Paula take the initiative to interrupt, the recording device is not a simple big red button that can be pressed by either party at will without significant effort or technical skills. In summary, the interviewee has minimal control over the device and its usage.

For individuals who rely more heavily on social support than others, issues of dependency and loss of control loom large (e.g., Bevan, 2002). Trust hinges on the premise that the trustgiver can relinquish control without anticipating harm. However, if the trusted party abuses this ceded control, it results in a loss of trust. If the unilateral use of the recording device by the interviewer is perceived by the interviewee as a breach of trust, it leads to methodological and possibly even situational or social complications.

We must carefully consider the degree of authority we project through our ‘equipment,’ which can carry negative connotations for our interlocutors accustomed to associating it with justifying their situation and vulnerability in formal conversations. The utilization of a recording device significantly shapes how its owners and users, as well as their professional identities, are perceived and evaluated.

Lack of Institutional Trust

Last but not least, trust in the interviewers and their management of the recording device and data is closely intertwined with trust in social institutions and collective entities (Kroeger, 2017). Establishing and maintaining trust in any interview context is essential, but when delicate topics such as income, illness, personal relationships, and sexuality are being discussed, the presence of a recording device further complicates the issue of trust. The context is already inherent in the situation (Clarke et al., 2022). Studies in nursing, health, and sensitive research have underscored this challenge (Caronia, 2015; Rutakumwa et al., 2020, p. 568, p. 159). The previously mentioned unidentified third party or additional audience may not be entirely unknown to interviewees, but their presence can be inferred from the nature and settings of the research fieldwork. In cases other than criminal prosecution, such as in Veronika’s situation, they might be government health authorities (Rutakumwa et al., 2020), asylum authorities (Yi-Neumann, 2024), or welfare state institutions responsible for determining payments, subsidies, and measures upon which the interviewees rely.

We can now draw the following conclusion: When conducting narrative interviews in situations involving vulnerable groups or private circumstances, a critical trust issue arises concerning the functionality of the recording device and its material, social, and symbolic aspects. Trust and mistrust within an interview setting are significantly influenced by the institutional context, the technical equipment, including its material capabilities and symbolic significance, as well as the interviewers’ institutional affiliations. Additionally, the skills and practices employed by interviewers play a vital role in preventing, mitigating, or alleviating mistrust stemming from the use of a recording device. What steps can we take to address this challenge?

Rethinking Research Routines in Favor of Participants’ Trust and Agency

Drawing from our findings, we put forward some recommendations that emphasize the importance of adaptability and reflexivity in addressing each unique situation and empowering participants. This approach will facilitate the establishment of a research process and environment conducive to trust, respectful and authentic communication while reducing distrust and power imbalances. This is particularly crucial when conducting interviews with vulnerable individuals.

Risk Evaluation

It is our responsibility to actively shape successful research practices rather than passively allowing the device to dictate our approach. When working with vulnerable populations or exploring sensitive subjects, it becomes imperative to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis instead of automatically resorting to recording devices. Departing from routine research practices entails a critical examination of the project’s question, methodology, and design, along with careful consideration of potential dangers and risks associated with audio-technical recording. Researchers should assess whether the chosen methodology effectively addresses the research question and take into account any potential harm it may cause to participants, the overall process, the resulting outcomes, and the crucial aspect of trust-building (see also Pascoe, 2022).

As demonstrated, there is a risk of concealing vital information or eliciting seemingly desired or inaccurate information, which can jeopardize the quality of our research. Given our inability to definitively ascertain the truth or falsehood of responses but our responsibility to provide accurate insights into people’s thoughts, emotions, and their actual circumstances, including their available resources and deficiencies, our primary focus should be on fostering authentic dialogue and maintaining a respectful and equitable interview environment. It is essential to minimize the potential for harm and distortion while also reflecting on our role and the role of our recording devices in enhancing the quality of our research.

Investing in Trust up to Shared Control over the Device

Trust takes precedence and should be the foremost consideration in non-standard interviews, closely followed by the establishment of a shared language. While we consider all information valuable, it is important to recognize that certain details have been shared with us in confidence, much like a personal secret. It is our responsibility to protect and safeguard these entrusted confidences. However, these secrets often contain unspoken and taboo subjects that are essential for driving positive change in the circumstances faced by our interviewees. If we are fortunate enough to foster mutual understanding with the individuals we are conversing with, or if we, as researchers, effectively communicate our intentions, the concept of secrets may gradually fade as trust and a sense of security regarding the use of this sensitive information are established.

Further extensive research in this area is imperative, with a specific focus on the recording device, including its historical development (for insights, refer to Lee, 2004, regarding the history of recording technology and its impact on interview methodology), functions, characteristics, and its influence in various interview research contexts. Instead of treating it as an incidental element, we should purposefully investigate the device (as emphasized by Platt, 2002, p. 41). Recording systems have evolved from occupying entire studio rooms in the past to now fitting in our pockets or being integrated into smartphones. While recording has become a routine aspect of everyday life for most people (e.g., through voice messages), participating in research interviews necessitates interviewees to depart from their everyday concept of recording and sharing only presentable aspects of themselves with a broader audience.

Recording and objectifying interviews, along with the departure from the usual confined audience of a typical conversation, introduce a power imbalance and significantly alter the dynamics of the interview. This contradicts the foundational principles of narrative interviewing and has a noticeable impact on the dynamics of trust and control. Efforts have been made in research practice to mitigate this issue, such as adopting the concept of “research without researchers” (Tannen et al., 2007; Wertheim, 2006), where control over the recording device is shared to some extent. However, studies have indicated that this does not necessarily lead to a more trusting research context or reduce the observer’s paradox (Gordon, 2012; Wertheim, 2006, p. 314).

The notion of an audience persists, albeit in a more abstract form. If mistrust emerges at any point in the research process, it becomes challenging to address without the presence of a human intermediary. This underscores the critical role of researchers in cultivating trust, as they are essential for establishing a trusting research environment.

Considering the recording device as a shared tool, we can provide instructions to the interviewee on its operation and position it between us. This arrangement allows both parties to have control over functions such as pausing and recording. Alternatively, we could opt to completely entrust the device to our interlocutor. Moreover, we must prioritize participant agency, underscoring the device’s capacity to amplify their voices for the benefit of policy and society.

By recontextualizing the device’s functionality, its level of exposure, control mechanisms, and any associated stigmas, we can convert it into a conduit for transmitting the interviewee’s authentic and anonymous message. From this standpoint, the device takes on the role of a potent voice amplifier to the world – a tool that guarantees the sincere conveyance of the respondents’ words while safeguarding them against any potential misuse or harm.

Another possible solution is to convey our trust in the recording device to participants effectively, emphasizing its advantages for analysis, such as improved accuracy and reflexivity, without inundating them with information. As Erickson (2004) observes, “(c)onceptions and tools evolve together. But the close analysis of human social interaction cannot proceed without the use of information storage and retrieval tools, and so their particular affordances and their variously jury-rigged uses play an important part in this story” (p. 206).

Embracing the Entire Interaction as a Document

We should abandon the notion of standardized ‘experimental conditions’ and instead regard the entire interaction as a comprehensive document, regardless of the methodology used to document each part of it. This encompasses every facet, ranging from the initial contact made through various channels to the physical and social environment, the interactions preceding and following the interview, and the interview itself, including the arrangement and the participant’s choice to either utilize or decline the recording device. Embracing a situational approach necessitates professionalism and spontaneity, allowing for adaptability and occasional departure from the professional role as the situation demands.

Broaden Methodological Education

To achieve this, methodological education must provide comprehensive training and awareness that extends beyond the mere conduct of narrative interviews in sensitive situations. It should encompass a range of techniques, including participant observation, on-site paper- or memory-based note-taking, researcher field journals, participant journals, participant self-documentation, post-situation descriptions, the interpretation of non-verbal cues, and meta-documents, such as case-wise and cross-case inventories or paraphrases of primary documents. We recommend recognizing that some of the most profound moments in research interactions occur without being recorded or even spoken. Formal considerations like ‘the real interview starts here’ or ‘only recorded speech is valid’ should be discarded when trust is on the line, if not for the sake of acquiring deeper and more comprehensive empirical insights.

Summary and Conclusions

Based on a series of interview case studies involving mothers receiving welfare benefits for their young children, it becomes evident that the presence of a recording device has significant effects on the interview process. Initially, these effects are felt as a discomfort akin to an invisible elephant in the room. Subsequently, interviewees become more cautious about their responses, particularly when discussing sensitive subjects like vulnerability, finances, intimate relationships, health, or interactions with welfare authorities. The interviewees’ narrative strategies undergo noticeable changes as soon as the recording device is introduced or activated or when the conversation veers toward sensitive topics.

These observed alterations in behavior include the performance of a facade, the revelation of traumatic experiences, interruptions in the recording, the omission of pertinent details in their accounts, general reticence, efforts to distance oneself from the conversation, and the redirection of sensitive topics to non-recorded “post-interview” discussions or the filtering of their narrative through a lens of social desirability. Most of these effects are detrimental in terms of the accuracy, authenticity, and depth of the data collected, as well as their potential to undermine the trust between the interviewer and interviewee. The few positive effects, such as encouraging disclosures of hidden critical events, still carry risks, such as re-victimization and re-traumatization.

From both scientific and ethical perspectives, it is justifiable to assert that recording devices have undesirable effects on the interview process. These effects stem from the device’s ability to capture spoken words. While it may appear to be a mere physical aspect of the device, its social and symbolic functions create an implied audience or a sense of public exposure, thereby increasing the risk of breaching the confidentiality typically assured by researchers through verbal assurances, written non-disclosure agreements, and the establishment of trust through interpersonal interactions.

As a methodological and practical recommendation, it is strongly advised to first assess the potential trust risks during the planning of fieldwork. Second, researchers should actively invest in building and maintaining trust with participants, which may even involve sharing control over the recording device or enhancing their participation in decision-making regarding its use. Third, it is essential to consider the entire interaction sequence as valuable data, extending from the initial contact to the final farewell, rather than focusing solely on the recorded interview itself. Fourth, researchers should have the flexibility to explore alternative documentation methods alongside audio recordings, such as creating detailed post-interview fieldnotes or utilizing memory protocols.

While numerous seasoned qualitative researchers from various institutions have corroborated our findings based on their own experiences, it is important to acknowledge that the cases presented here, depicting interviewees’ strategies for addressing trust issues stemming from the presence of recording devices, may not offer a comprehensive picture due to the composition of our sample. Further research will probably uncover additional and varied conversational strategies employed by both interviewees and interviewers to navigate the “recorder effect” on trust within interview settings.

Indeed, it is conceivable that trust-building efforts, interviewer empathy, comprehensive methodological training, shared control over the recording device, and a reflective assessment of risks may not suffice to fully mitigate or alleviate all trust-related challenges that can emerge during interviews. Consider, for instance, individuals with severe trauma histories, situations marked by extreme hierarchy or other inherent risks, or encounters characterized by significant language barriers. In such cases, alternative professional approaches may be required to establish a research interaction that is conducive to the well-being of all participants.

Nonetheless, we hope that our analysis and recommendations foster a more reflective approach to the utilization of audio recording devices in qualitative interviewing.