637
1 INTRODUCTION
In social science, interviews are used for data
collectioninqualitative research which encompasses
gathering the data or information through use of
enquiry,byaseriesofqueriesandtheirresponsesthat
couldinvolvetwoormorepersons[1]. The material
informationthatissoughtbytheresearcher
isusually
solicited or collected from the interviewer by using
specificallydesignedquestionsorkeyfocusareasfor
discussions during the interview, covering the topic
beingresearched.
Infact,interviewscouldbeconsideredasthemost
commonly and widely used tool in qualitative
researchfordatacollection.Theyareaimed
tocollect
information about views, insights, experiences, and
beliefs of the interviewer related to a particular
research question or phenomenon of interest, for
analysis[2].
Interviews are also a widely used method in
maritime research that uses qualitative
methodologies.Forexample,preliminaryexamination
ofdata,aboutthepublicationofarticlesin
TransNav
for last two years, reveals that almost 40 percent of
articles use qualitative or mixed methods. Further,
interview is the most commonly used method
amongst various qualitative or mixed methods
utilized in these articles, apart from document
analysis.
The interviews could be structured, semi‐
structuredor unstructured. The structured
interview
isconsideredto be more quantitativeandisutilized
by the researchers in surveys, while semi‐structured
andunstructured,areusedbyqualitativeresearchers,
with these interviews characterized by increasing
levels of flexibility and lack of structure [3]. The
importantaspectofthequalitativeinterviewsisthatit
can be
a mutually learning experience for both the
interviewersandintervieweesaboutcertainaspectsof
Expert as Interviewer
–
Methodological Challenges in
Use of Qualitative Interviews in Maritime Research
D.R.Sharma
WesternNorwayUniversityofAppliedSciences,Haugesund,Norway
ABSTRACT:Interviewsareawidelyusedmethodinmaritimeresearchusingqualitativemethodologies.Expert
interviewsareconductedwithpeoplewhohavespecialknowledgebecauseoftheirprofessionalposition.The
statusoftheinterviewerwhenusingexpertinterviewsbringsforthcertaindistinctnuancesdue
tothespecific
nature of the interview methodology and epistemological considerations. A renowned and senior maritime
specialist or a veteran maritime professional researching the nuances of their own field encounter
methodologicalchallengeswhileinterviewingotherexpertsduringdatacollection.Thepaperaimstoexamine
theimpactonqualitativedatacollected
ininterviewswhentheinterviewersthemselvesareexpertsinthefield
ofresearch.The concepts fromthesocialscienceresearch from various disciplineshave been examinedand
discussedhighlightingthemethodologicalchallenges.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 3
September 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.03.15
638
themselves and the other person/persons, even
thoughitmayormaynotbeanintendedpartofthe
conversation exchange. As both interviewer and
intervieweeinherentlycarrytheirownversionsofthe
concepts, ideas, theories, values, and experiences, it
canalsoplayapartduringtheresearchinteractionin
the
qualitativeinterview.
Interviews can be used to collect data from a
sample of population based on the research criteria
andinmanyinstances,interviewsareconductedwith
persons having a particular domain expertise,
professionalorspecializedknowledge,exclusiveskills
or experience and competence, etc. to source such
data. These persons
designated as experts – in their
own field, are quite commonly group of persons
targetedforinterviewsinvariousqualitativestudies.
Incidentally,these persons are usually expert in one
field, which obviously is their expertise, while they
couldbeanormalornovicepersoninallotherfields.
For example, for
a research study on pedagogical
challenges during maritime simulator education, the
teacher or instructor imparting training to maritime
studentsinasimulatorcoursecouldbeconsideredan
expert.However,thispersonmaynotbeconsidered
an expert if the research study focuses on other
aspectsofmaritimeeducation.
In academic
research, the researcher is usually
consideredtobeapersonwhoisanoutsiderorwho
doesnotbelongtothisgroupofexperts.However,in
some cases, the persons who can be classified as
experts themselves in the topic being researched,
become the researcher. These situations pose
methodological challenges in
context of qualitative
researchandthusneedtobedeliberated.
1.1 ResearchQuestion
The paper is focused on the question‐What is the
impact on qualitative data collected in interviews
when the interviewer is an expert in the field of
research?
Thus, methodical challenges and factors likely to
influence data
collection in qualitative expert
interviewsconductedbyexpertswillbeidentified.
1.2 Method
The overall analytical framework applied for
answering the research question is by broadly
applyingqualitativeresearchstrategy.Thereafter,the
conceptsfromthesocialscienceresearchrelatedtothe
topichavebeenexaminedanddiscussedhighlighting
themethodicalchallenges.
2 REFLEXIVITY–AVALUABLECONCEPT
Before discussing the role or influence of the
interviewer and interviewee in a qualitative
interview,itisappropriatetorecognizetheconceptof
‘Reflexivity’ which is well accepted in qualitative
research and brings forth an interesting co‐
relationship between researcher and the researched.
The
awareness by the researcher, about the
researcher’s influence on the persons or the subject
being researched, and concurrently also recognizing
how the research experience is affecting the
researcher,isusuallytermedas‘Reflexivity’[4].
It is recognized that the ‘researcher’ willhavean
influence on the ‘researched’. Therefore, the
researcher is
encouraged or urged to explicitly
analyseandexamineallaspectsrelatedtotheresearch
byrecognizingthisprocessof ‘Reflexivity’. Thiswill
include evaluating researchers influence specifically
due to the agenda of research, its assumptions,
location of subject, any beliefs, personal views and
emotions, and how these influences enter into
the
researchanalysis[5].
So, in general, any researcher as an interviewer,
whetherbeinganexperthimselfornot,willhavean
influence on the interviewee, though reflexivity
debate is more related to the bias of the researcher
thanany other methodological challenges.However,
the issue has been introduced here only
to
contextualizethequestionaboutinfluenceofnotonly
the perceptions of the researcher as interviewer but
also his intellectual or professional status and
position.Thus,itisevidentthatallinterviewswillbe
subject to the influence by the researcher, however,
this paper brings out those influences which are
in
addition to the general ‘Reflexivity’ debate, and
introduced in specific situations when the
interviewersareexpertsthemselves.
3 STATUSOFRESEARCHERINQUALITATIVE
INTERVIEW
In order to study the influences of the expert as
interviewer, it is prudent that another important
aspect during the interview interaction, related to
power dynamics
between the participants be also
examined.Thetypologyofthesepowerdynamicswill
also be a major component within the overall
influenceandmaycomplementorsupplement,andin
somecases‐maydiscount,thebalanceofpower.
As a typical view about the interactions in
qualitative interview, it has been
noted by various
scholarsthatthereisapowerasymmetrybetweenthe
interviewer and the interviewee. The research
interviewcannotbeconsideredasanopendemocratic
dialogue between equal unassuming participants as
theinterviewer(theresearcher)controlsamuchlarger
role. It involves conceptualizing and outlining the
interview situation, determining the
interview topic,
askingquestionsand thendecidingwhich responses
need to be followed up with more questions, and
finallydecidingwhentofinishtheinterview[6].
This dominant power relationship of the
researcher has further been explained by Kvale by
highlightingthattheresearcherusestheinterviewas
an instrument
for promoting own research interests
and thus, it may be a manipulative dialogue which
pursues a hidden agenda of interviewer, obtaining
information without any knowledge by the
interviewee. However, due to this control by the
researcher about how the statements of interviewee
are interpreted, the interviewee may sometimes
withholdinformationor
talkaroundthesubject.
639
However, this position is a generalization of the
interview method and the power dynamics in an
interview, between the researcher as the interviewer
andtheintervieweeasthesubject,isnotalwaystilted
towardstheresearcherasbroughtoutbyKvale.
Therecouldbemanyotherfactorsinfluencingthe
power
dynamicsinaresearchinterview.Thestatusof
the person in terms of socioeconomic position or
educational and professional standing, and personal
characteristicsintermsofgenderorethnicidentity,of
either the interviewer or the interviewee can also
determinethepowerduringaninterview[7].
In certain situations, the
research interest of the
interviewer can also be altered or corrupted by the
interviewee, apart from distorting or perverting the
themeoftheresearchitself.
The power dynamics between the researcherand
the interviewee may also change during various
stages of the interview and it could happen during
datacollectionas
wellasinanalysis.
This change in power dynamics, however, also
enablesathoroughunderstandingofthefineraspects
of the data being gathered, and promotes in‐depth
research process, through more information about
boththeresearcherandinterviewee.
Acomprehensiveexaminationtobringoutvarious
shifts in the positions
of the ‘researcher’ and the
‘researched’ during the qualitative research through
six empirical studies was conducted, which used
different types of interviews, e.g., in‐depth, focus
group,etc[8].Effortstoestablishananti‐authoritarian
relationship between researcher and researched,
negotiation of who actually ‘rules’ the research
agenda, and experiences of
shifts in ‘inferior’ and
‘superior’ knowledge positions emerged as central
and intertwined themes throughoutthe studies. The
dualroleasbothinsiderandoutsider,characteristicof
qualitative approaches, seemed to lead to power
relations and researcher vulnerability which
manifested intangible ways. Thus, it highlights that
theresearcherpositionis
notalwaysprivilegedinan
interviewandthepowerbalanceisnotalwaystilted
towardstheinterviewer.
Theresearchers–whichmayormaynotbeexpert
themselves,areinfluencedbythesepowerdynamics
and thus, it also influences the quality of data
collectedduringtheinterviews.
After bringing out the
concept of Reflexivityand
power asymmetry during the interview, which are
generally applicable for all researchers, let us now
focusonthespecificcaseswhentheinterviewersare
themselvesexperts.
3.1 ExpertInterviews
Thestatusoftheinterviewerwhenheisusingexpert
interviewsbringsforthcertaindistinctnuancesdue
to
thespecificnatureoftheinterviewmethodologyand
epistemologicalconsiderations.Expertinterviewsare
conductedwithpeoplewhohave specialknowledge
becauseoftheirprofessionalposition.
The role of the researcher or interviewer who is
interviewing an expert could become entirely
different due to various categories of interaction
situations in expert
interviews which are a
manifestation of arrays of specific competence and
power ascriptions or assertions [9]. The authors
specify that the interviewer could be considered by
theexpertbeinginterviewed,asaco‐expertorexpert
fromadifferentknowledgeculture,asalayperson,as
anauthority,asan
accompliceorasapotentialcritic.
Interestingly, these potential roles are usually a
consequence of the mutual interactions and are not
exclusively dependent on the interviewer and
interviewee themselves. Thus, it is evident that the
interviewer here does not yield asymmetrical power
in a similar dominant way as in the traditional
interviewsettings.
Theexpertinterviewissometimesdesignatedasa
talkbetweentheexpert anda quasi‐expert [10]. The
relatively exclusive special knowledge of the expert,
usually developed during a long (secondary)
socializationprocess,needstobetappedoraccessed
by the interviewer, as much as possible, through
determined
andsystematicapproach.Theacquisition
ofahighdegreeofthematiccompetenceonthepartof
the interviewer before he conducts the interview is
constitutiveforanexpertinterview.
However,theinterviewerstypicallyatbestachieve
the status of a quasi‐expert, in as much as they
interact unfettered by responsibility
for the
developmentandprovisionofproblemsolutionsand
thus with theessential difference of being free from
theburdenofaction.
Thediscussionofthestatusoftheinterviewersin
anexpertinterviewinthissectionisprimarilyfocused
on the assumption that they themselves are not an
expert
inthesamefieldorapeeroftheexpertandjust
a researcher with an interest in the researched field
withrecognizedacademiccompetence.
4 RESEARCHINGYOUROWNPEERS
The methodological problems and processes to
overcome them when a researcher is involved in
researching his own organization highlight some of
thechallengesbeingexaminedinthiscontext.While
the notion of impartiality and objective neutrality is
obvious, the issues of friendship, vulnerability, and
poweralongwithaprecariousbalancingactbetween
‘strangeness’ and ‘familiarity’ presents challenges to
the researcher [11]. Though, these reflexivity and
ethicalchallengeshighlightedbytheauthor
maynot
be directly contextual to our topic‐experts
themselves researching their peers or other experts,
she also brings out certain other interesting aspects
whicharerelevanttoourcase.
Thewillingnesstospeakfreelybytheinterviewee,
participants expecting the researchers to be their
spokesperson for getting a message across
as they
considered them ‘one of us but with flexibility to
report freely’, degree of ‘edginess’ in interviewees
about outcomes of research subsequently being
negativeduetotheresearcherbeinginsider,andpeer
relationships sometimes even influencing the
researcher’s inquiry‐being protective of their own
intellectual and professional competence in
front of
640
peers,couldverywellbealsorelevanttothesettings
ofexpertsinterviewingexperts.
Inacademictextsrelatedtointerviews,itisusually
assumed– though implicitly,that the interviewee is
notapeeroftheresearcherorinterviewerandisfrom
a different social group. Further, the experience of
interviewingthepeersdemonstratesthatthetopology
of the interview and relationship between the
interviewer and the interviewee is quite different in
these situations than the traditional research
interviews, which in turn, affects the nature and
outcomeoftheinterview[12].
There are distinct characteristics in the peers
relevant in
the context of comparison with normal
interviewee, which could impact the interview. The
peers are usually social equals – rather in a broad
sense, equals in role‐specific sense, share similar
background, knowledge and cultural considerations,
and they are also members of same community or
group.
Some of the challenges while
interviewing the
peers encountered by the researcher or interviewer
include access or sharing of intimate or confidential
information, pre‐supposition of background
knowledgebyboththeresearcherandtheinterviewee
considered‘generalknowledge’andthepredicament
ofjudgingacolleaguethoughbothrecognizingeach
other equal in status. For example,
a professor
engaged in research about curriculum design or
student’s behaviour in maritime education, may
encounter such challenges when interviewing
colleagues from same faculty. The data could be
corrupted by the interviewees through incomplete
answers – presuming the interviewer catches the
meaning or idea, vague responses – to avoid being
judged,
andinsinuations–tobecautious.
Thus, the situation discussed in this paper about
expert interviewing another expert may, in some
cases, be considered as a subset of researching own
peers,iftheresearcherexactlyfitsorcouldbelongto
the sample of the population being studied in a
particular
research study. The nuances of the
methodologicalchallengesinsuchascenariowillnot
onlycompriseofthoserelatedtothepeerresearchbut
alsosupplementedwithother problemsencountered
duetothesespecializedcircumstances.
5 IMPACTOFDOMAINEXPERTBECOMINGA
RESEARCHER
Let us now discuss the challenges when the
researchers are domain experts in their own field.
They are not a novice researcher with general
knowledgeoftheresearchedsubjectasenvisagedin
previous paragraphs. For example, a renowned and
senior maritime specialist or a veteran professional
researchingthe nuances ofownfield.It could either
be a senior
professor conducting research about
maritime education‐interviewing junior teachers &
otherseniorprofessors,seniormaritimesafetyauditor
conducting research on auditing quality‐
interviewingjunior&otherseniorauditorsorasenior
governmental legal adviser on maritime law
conducting research on maritime regulations‐
interviewingjunior&seniorlegalofficers.
The important point
to note hereis that they are
either equally or sometimes more qualified than the
experts they are likely to interact with as part of
research.Thistotallychangesthepowerdynamicsin
the interviews when used as a data source. Even if
theymaynotbedirectacquaintances,they
arepartof
a larger socialgroup ofprofessionals with extensive
expertiseandexperienceinthesamefieldanditmay
certainlyinfluence not onlythe interviewee but also
theinterviewer.Itfurthercomplicatesthesettingsas
theinterviewerplays tworolessimultaneously–the
researcher and the researched, due to
the prior
knowledge and understandings of the group being
studied or researched, and at the same time, also
belongingtothatgroup[13].
The influences of an expert interacting with an
expertprovidedifferentsettingsanddimensionsinan
interview which may not be available in a normal
situation where
the researchers are not expert
themselves.M. PfadenhauerquotesSchütz(1972)that
normally,theexpertsshareacommunicativeuniverse
amongstthemselves,whichisuniqueandcompriseof
elements easily comprehended in their own group
[10]. It may be characterized by thematic focus,
utilizing specialized terms, speaking professional
jargonanduseof
indexicallanguage.However,while
communicatingwithnon‐experts,theexpertstendto
supplement their language with explanations using
metaphors andanalogies,to highlight orplay down
or dramatize the events. They could sometimes also
adopt a paternalistic or self‐legitimizing
conversationalbehaviour.
Whentheresearcherplaystheroleofthe
insiderin
an interview, it leads to greater and wholesome
acceptanceoftheresearchandtheresearcher,bythe
interviewees and therefore, comprehensive and
detaileddatacouldbecollectedastheyaremoreopen
andwelcomingtotheresearcher[14].
Theintervieweesaremoreenthusiasticandkeener
about sharing their experiences
due to perceived
shared understanding with the interviewer which
offersthemhigherleveloftrustandopenness.Insuch
scenarios, it is also feasible that the interview is
steeredand directedbythe experienceandviewsof
theresearcherratherthantheinterviewee.
The research in health sector also brings
out
interesting aspects affecting the expert‐expert
interaction in qualitative interviews [15]. The
interviewisperceivedasanexaminationandasatest
offactualknowledgebythe participantswheretheir
knowledge is under scrutiny as the
researcher/interviewerisalsoanexpert.Sometimes,it
wasalsoconsideredasaneducationalprocess
where
theparticipantslookedforwardtofeedback on their
knowledge & performance and asked professional
questionstotheresearcherstreatingthemasanexpert
resource to update their own knowledge and skills.
Interestingly, some informants aligned themselves
withtheinterviewer,andexpressedthe camaraderie
ofbothbeingexpertprofessionals.In
somecases,the
informantsexpressedaformofsolidarityintheface
of potential criticism of the profession‐which was
commonbetween the researcherandtheparticipant.
Thus, these interactions managed to bring out new
641
orientation and power dynamics to the interviews
thantheconventionalsettings.
Similarfindingshavealsobeenhighlightedinthe
contextofhighereducationresearch[16].Theexperts
didnot perceive the researchersas evaluators inthe
sense that they saw them as representatives of a
superiorauthority,chargedwithassessing
thesubject
ofresearch,however,theparticipantsperceivedthem
asapotentialrisk,whomightpassoninformationto
the ‘wrong’ people and in this way endanger its
future.
Interestingly,thetimetaken todeveloparapport
amongst the participants in an interview may
decrease substantially due to pre‐existing
relationships, which facilitates in converting the
interview quickly into a shared discussion about
experiences[17].
It was also found that the interviewees could
potentiallyprovidealotmoreinformation,sometimes
revealingmorethantheyintended–whichtheymay
regretsubsequently,asaresultofthehigherlevelsof
trustdue
toaccustomedfriendshiporworkaffiliation.
The power dynamics in an interview could also
shift due to the site or location selected for the
interview and the control may swing from the
intervieweetotheinterviewerandviceversabecause
ofdifferentlocations.
6 EXPERT‐EXPERTINTERACTIONSIN
RESEARCHSETTINGS‐
SPECIALCASES
Letusalsodeliberateonsomespecialsituationsinthe
expert‐expertinteractionsinresearchsettings.
6.1 Elitegroups
In specific cases of studying‐up or researching‐up
while interviewing the members of the elite groups,
the imbalance between the interviewer and the
interviewee has been brought out by
many scholars
and strategies to decrease the same have also been
propounded.However,thefocusofdiscussionhereis
not about challenges when a normal researcher has
less power than an elite, but on cases when the
researcherisclosetoorpartoftheelitegroup.
Elitesaresometimes
definedasthosefromhigher
management and board‐level hierarchy in
organizations or members of the senate, etc. [18].
However, in some cases, the term ultra‐elites is also
usedformosthighlyplacedmembersofanelite–the
tiny set of persons possessing highest influence,
abundant power and remarkable
prestige in an
institutionalsphere,forexample,thetermwasusedin
a study, when many Nobel laureates were
interviewedforthequalitativeresearch[19].
However, the impact of situations where the
researchers themselves are distinguished experts or
even a member of the elite group, have been less
researchedin
literature.Thismaybeprimarilydueto
extremely rare occurrences of such situations in
research settings. Incidentally, a Nobel laureate
interviewing other Nobel laureates for his research
usingqualitativeinterviewsasamethod,maysurely
encounter special methodological and other
challengeswhichwillbeuncommontonormalcases.
In maritime context,
it could be IMO Secretary
General interviewing former Secretary Generals for
research about maritime issues or challenges in
functioning of IMO. In rather more practical terms,
formerDirectorsofNationalMaritimeAuthoritiesor
Departments and former Heads of National/
InternationalMaritimeResearchInstitutesinvolvedin
research, may also face similar
challenges when the
sampleincludesministers,headsofinstitutions,etc.
6.2 PrivilegedAccessInterviewing
It is also appropriate to briefly discuss a specialized
techniquecalledPrivilegedAccessInterviewing(PAI)
asitalsorelatestoaformofpeer‐to‐peerinteraction
andin some cases,couldbe consideredanexpert to
expertinteractionbasedontheresearchsettings.
PAI is a very commonly used method while
researching a topic concerning persons involved in
illegalorcriminalactivitiessuchasillicitdrugusers.
Suchpopulationsmayremainhiddenduetheirnon‐
availabilityforresearch,whichiseithernotaccessible
toanormal
researcherorposesseriouschallengesin
effectively collecting authentic data from the
interviewee due tofear of prosecution, social norms
andostracization.
In this PAI approach of data gathering, the
‘insiders‐those belonging to the same privileged
group,thatisbeingtargetedforresearch’areusedby
the researchers, to conduct
the interviews for them.
These insiders or sometimescalled privilegedaccess
interviewers,are utilized to conduct interviewswith
persons in their own network and linkages. For
example, during a study on drug addicts, former
addicts or drug users themselves can conduct the
interviews,astheymayhavefirst‐handknowledge
of
the drug supply network, information about drug
usersincommunity,acquaintancesinthepopulation
of drug users and better acceptability by the drug
users’communityforaskingquestions.
While comparing the PAI with traditional
interviewing methods, it was found that PAI team
received more truthful answers to the sensitive
questions
[20].Thoughthismethoddoesnotposeany
explicitsimilaritytotheexpertinterviews,however,it
is interesting to note that it also demonstrates
outcomes where the participants consider the peer
researchersas‘one of us’ and develop more trustto
share sensitive information with them, which
presumably they have
reservations in sharing with
anyoneelse.
In maritime context, research on piracy related
issues may use former pirates themselves
interviewingexistingorformerpirates,asitislikely
torevealmuchmoresensitiveinformationthanusing
anormaloutsiderasaresearcher.
Therefore,thisissimilartothefindingsdiscussed
in
the preceding paragraphs when the experts are
interactingwiththeexperts.Itdemonstratesthatthese
nuances affect all such situations where the
642
participantandtheresearcherarefromthesamepeer
group.
In general, it is obvious now that the researchers
being experts in their domain affects the interview,
especially with experts,forqualitative research. One
of the solutions for such challenges could be the
standardmethodologyoftriangulation.Themixingof
the qualitative interviewing with other methods or
using another researcher without an expert
backgroundto contrastthefindings of the interview
aresomeofthestrategieswhichcouldbeconsidered.
7 CONCLUSION
Interviews are a widely used method in maritime
researchusingqualitativemethodologies.Further,in
manyinstances,maritimeexperts
asaresearcheruse
interviewsasaqualitativedatasourceforresearching
theirfieldofexpertisewithsamplesdrawnfromthe
poolofotherexpertsinthefield.
Thoughexpert interviewsareadequatelycovered
inliterature,itisprimarilyfocusedonpresumingthat
the expert interviews are conducted by researchers
who
are not experts themselves. Thus, it was found
that the methodological implications of an expert
researcher interviewing professional peers or other
expertsareunder‐exploredintheliterature,however,
theyarepotentiallyimportantinqualitativeresearch.
The examination of the related research from
various disciplines of social science subsequently
revealed
that the challenges in researching own
organization by a researcher, the peers or
contemporariesandthecommonsocialgroupscould
bothbepositiveandnegative.Whileitmayfacilitate
inbuildingrapportwiththeparticipantsandgaining
access to sensitive & privileged information due to
increased levels of trust, it may
sometimes result in
the interview being hijacked by the participant and
discussionsonunnecessaryissuesnotconnectedwith
research.
Further,when the researcherhimself is an expert
and is conducting an interview with other experts,
pre‐judging him as an evaluator of participant’s
knowledge and fear of negative findings impacting
the participant will result in data corruption as
participantswillreservethemselvesfromexposingto
the researcher. In addition, the inquiry by the
researcher himself could be affected as he is also
influenced in not exposing his research approach or
perceivedlessknowledgeinaparticulartopicdueto
peerpressure.
It was also found that specialized expert‐expert
interactions between members of elite groups in
researchsettingsand PrivilegedAccessInterviewing
are also less explored topics in terms of
methodologicalchallenges.However, thereisa need
forfurtherdetailedresearchontheseissues tobring
out methodological challenges in expert‐
expert
interactionswithanincreaseinthenumberofexpert
maritimeprofessionalstakingupacademicresearch.
REFERENCES
[1]M.DeCarlo,ScientificInquiryinSocialWork.Roanoke,
Virginia:OpenSocialWorkEducation,2018.
[2]S.D.LambertandC.G.Loiselle,ʺCombiningindividual
interviewsandfocusgroupstoenhancedatarichness,ʺ
JournalofAdvancedNursing,vol.62,no.2,pp.228‐237,
2007.
[3]R. Edwards and J. Holland,
What is Qualitative
Interviewing?London:Bloomsbury,2013.
[4]J.F.Gilgun,ʺLivedExperience,Reflexivity,andResearch
on Perpetrators of Interpersonal Violence,ʺ Qualitative
SocialWork,vol.7,no.2,pp.181‐197,2008.
[5]P.‐C. Hsiung,ʺTeaching Reflexivity in Qualitative
Interviewing,ʺ Teaching Sociology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp.
211‐226,2008.
[6]S. Kvale, Doing Interviews. London: Sage Publications,
2007.
[7]F. Anyan,ʺThe Influence of Power Shifts in Data
CollectionandAnalysisStages:AFocusonQualitative
ResearchInterview,ʺQualitativeReport,vol.18,no.36,
pp.1‐9,2013.
[8]M.Råheim,L.H.Magnussen,R.J.TvetSekse,A.Lunde,
J.T,andA.Blystad,ʺResearcher–researchedrelationship
inqualitativeresearch:Shiftsinpositionsandresearcher
vulnerability,ʺ International Journal of Qualitative
StudiesonHealthandWell‐being,vol.11,no.1,2016.
[9]A.BognerandW.Menz,ʺTheTheory‐GeneratingExpert
Interview: Epistemological Interest, Forms of
Knowledge, Interaction,ʺ in Interviewing
Experts, A.
Bogner,B.Littig,andW.MenzEds.NewYork:Palgrave
Macmillan,2009.
[10]M.Pfadenhauer,ʺAtEyeLevel:TheExpertInterview—
a Talk between Expert and Quasi‐expert,ʺ in
InterviewingExperts,A.Bogner,B.Littig,andW.Menz
Eds.NewYorkPalgraveMacmillan,2009,pp.81‐97.
[11]
S. Tietze,ʺResearching your own organization.,ʺ in
QualitativeOrganizationalResearch‐CoreMethodsand
Current Challenges G. Symon and C. Cassell Eds.
London:SagePublications,2012,pp.53‐71.
[12]J. Platt,ʺOn Interviewing Oneʹs Peers,ʺ The British
JournalofSociology,vol.32,no. 1,pp.75‐91,1981.
[13]
M.J.Greene,ʺOntheInsideLookingIn:Methodological
Insights and Challenges in Conducting Qualitative
Insider Research in Conducting Qualitative Insider
ResearchʺTheQualitativeReportvol.19,no.29,pp.1‐
13,2014.
[14]S.C.DwyerandJ.L.Buckle,ʺTheSpaceBetween:On
BeinganInsider‐OutsiderinQualitative
Research,ʺThe
InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods,vol.8,no.
1,pp.54‐63,2009.
[15]L. Coar and J. Sim,ʺInterviewing one’s peers:
methodological issues in a study of health
professionals,ʺScandinavian Journal of Primary Health
Care,vol.24,pp.251‐256,2006.
[16]G. Malli and S. Sackl‐
Sharif,ʺResearching Oneʹs Own
Field. Interaction Dynamics and Methodological
Challenges in the Context of Higher Education
Research,ʺ Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, vol. 16,
no.1,p.Art.11,2015.
[17]L.Quinney,T.Dwyer,andY.Chapman,ʺWho,Where,
and How of Interviewing Peers: Implications for a
Phenomenological Study,ʺ SAGE Open,
vol. 6, no. 3,
2016.
[18]W. S. Harvey,ʺStrategies for conducting elite
interviews,ʺQualitativeResearch,vol.11,no.4,pp.431‐
441,2011.
[19]H.Zuckerman,ʺInterviewinganUltra‐Elite,ʺThePublic
OpinionQuarterly,vol.36,no.2,1972.
[20]B.JohnsonandT.Richert,ʺAcomparisonofprivileged
access interviewing and traditional interviewing
methods when studying drug users in treatment,ʺ
AddictionResearch&Theory,vol.24,no.5,pp.406‐415,
2016.
