Methodological Considerations in Anthropological Interviews: Emic and Etic Perspectives

1. Methodological considerations in interviewing: A view from anthropology Olga Demetriou, SHARP workshop 6 May 2011

2. Interviewing as anthropological method • Anthropology: Focus on culture as constituent of identity • Ethnography: Data-collection method in anthropology • Participant observation: Main ethnographic methodology • Conversational method for interacting with informants • Interview as a specialised form of conversational exchange

3. Types of interviews • Formal / informal • Structured / unstructured • Open questions / closed questions • Recording methods: note-taking, voice-recording, video-recording  effect on perceptions of ‘formality’ • Context determines data collected

4. -emic / -etic effects • Emic perspective: the perspective of an insider to the group (e.g. informant)  subjective • Etic perspective: the perspective of an outside to the group (e.g. anthropologist)  objective • Emic perspectives have an effect on the way an anthropologist analyses events • Etic perspectives can equally affect the ways in which informants come to understand their own position • Therefore distinctions are ultimately blurred

5. Reflexivity • Engagement with researcher’s own positionality vis-à-vis research subjects • Reflection on own background and its effect on evaluation of data • Reflection on how perception of researcher’s identity influences informants’ responses • Access to greater ‘objectivity’ through engagement with ‘subjectivity’

6. Native anthropology • Native anthropology / anthropology at home: studying one’s own society / culture • Advantages: prior knowledge of language and linguistic codes, easier access to community, ‘innate’ understanding of cultural codes, etc • Disadvantages: knowledge of society is positioned (e.g. class, ethnicity), familiarity with cultural codes and practices may render them ‘natural’ and therefore unnoticed

7. The Cypriot context • Understandings of identity taken for granted (e.g. Cypriot = Greek-Cypriot) • Conflict as main constituent of identity (daily reference in media, education, literary production, etc) • Exceptionalism (e.g. last divided European capital, only European territory occupied, etc) • Insularity as result (e.g. foreigners do not understand, other priorities not relevant, etc)

8. The European context • Europe as institutional frame  EU • Relevance of ideological mechanisms (democracy, rights, reconciliation, multiculturalism, etc)? • Particular understandings of borders (internal / external, material / mental) • Questions of belonging: core & periphery

9. Identity and belonging • Multiplicity of identity (e.g. race-class-gender, but others too) • Belonging and identification  questions of exclusion • Relevance to interviewing context: consideration of power dynamics and context-specificity

10. Citizenship • Citizenship as key form of defining inclusion/exclusion • i.e. juridical form of defining the group • Degrees of citizenship (equality in law but in practice may not apply) • Exclusion of migrants and degrees of illegality

11. Territory • Space as constituent of identity  mental maps • Levels of spatial identities: local, national, European  but scales may be ‘jumped’ or mixed (e.g. consumer identities) • Territories enclosed within borders  transfer of mental borders in new environments

12. Conclusion / Questions • Interview situation may distort responses / opinions • Can this be addressed / corrected? • Will the interview be indicative of something other than identities of individuals (e.g. hegemonic discourses)? • Ways to reflect this? • How would an educational setting be different?