質性訪談中的權力關係

Power Relations in Qualitative Interviews

10.6512/lnp.201912_(7).0001

張慈宜(Tsz-Yi Chang)

女性主義 ； 訪談關係 ； 認識論 ； 質性訪談 ； 權力 ； feminism ； interview relationships ； epistemology ； qualitative interviews ； power

生命敘說與心理傳記學

7輯（2019 / 12 / 01）

1 - 16

繁體中文

質性訪談的資料生產是一個在特定的情境脈絡底下，由特定的訪談者與特定的研究參與者互動協商的結果，這樣的信念越來越廣為接受。在此一互動協商的過程中，有許多層面的因素會介入影響到訪談的成果，本文將焦點鎖定在質性訪談研究中的「權力關係」，旨在探究質性訪談過程中的「權力」因素會如何運作？而質性研究人員又該如何面對？有些女性主義學者主張訪談者與研究參與者維持一種非等級性（non-hierarchical）的關係，不僅具有倫理的意涵，並且具備方法論層面的意義，但此一立場後來也受到了許多挑戰。本文主張一種立場：研究者應該在整個研究過程中都密切覺察「權力」之運作，並且將之視為我們理解研究對象、研究議題，以及我們自身的一個重要窗口。

It is believed that the outcome of a qualitative interview is the result of interaction and negotiation between a specific interviewer and a specific interviewee under a specific context, and this belief is increasingly accepted. In this interactive negotiation process, there are many levels of factors that will influence the outcome of the interview. Among these many factors, this article focuses on the ＂power relationship＂ in qualitative interview research, in order to explore: (a) How does the factor of ＂power＂ work during the whole process of interview? (b) How should qualitative researchers face it? Some feminist scholars advocate that the interviewer should build with the interviewee a non-hierarchical relationship, which not only has ethical meaning but also has methodological significance, which will allow the interview to better perform its inquiry function. But this position has since been challenged. Although the interviewer has the power to ＂look＂ at the interviewee and set the agenda, the interviewer also has his/her own needs, desires, or goals, which he/she wants to express or achieve through the interview, and the power relationship in the interview cannot go operate independent from the outside real world. Therefore, the researcher should be aware of the operation of ＂power＂ throughout the entire research process, and to reflect on the power dynamics of the interview, taking it as an important window of our understanding of the research participants, research issues, and ourselves.

1. Allan, G.(ed.),Skinner, C. J.(ed.)(1991).Handbook for research students in the social sciences.London, UK:Falmer.
2. Atkinson, P.,Silverman, D.(1997).Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self.Qualitative Inquiry,3,304-325.
3. Birch, M.,Miller, T.(2000).Inviting intimacy: The interview as therapeutic opportunity.International Journal of Social Research Methodology,3,189-202.
4. Blee, K. M.(1998).White-knuckle research: Emotional dynamics in fieldwork with racist activists.Qualitative Sociology,21,381-399.
5. Collins, P.(1998).Negotiating selves: Reflections on “unstructured” interviewing.Sociological Research Online,3(3),70-83.
6. Delamont, S.(ed.)(2012).Handbook of qualitative research in education.Cheltenham, UK:Elgar.
7. Denzin, N. K.(ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(ed.)(2000).The Sage handbook of qualitative research.London, UK:Sage.
8. Denzin, N. K.(ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(ed.)(2018).The Sage handbook of qualitative research.London, UK:Sage.
9. Denzin, N. K.(ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(ed.)(2000).Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
10. Edwards, R.,Holland, J.(2013).What is qualitative interviewing?.London, UK:Bloomsbury.
11. Emery, B., Friedmann, L., Lauder, K., Little, G., McQuarrie, C. (Producer), & Alvarez, K. P. (Director). (2015). The Stanford prison experiment [Motion picture]. United States: Abandon Pictures, Coup d’Etat Films, & Sandbar Pictures.
12. Fletcher, G.(2017).Accommodating conflicting realities: The messy practice of ethical (self) regulation.International Journal of Social Research Methodology,20,275-284.
13. Foster, S. W.(2013).What is “the question”?.Anthropology and Humanism,38,146-159.
14. Foucault, M.(1977).Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.New York, NY:Random House.
15. Gamarnikow, E.(ed.)(1983).The public and the private.London, UK:Heinemann.
16. Gluck, S. B.(ed.),Patai, D.(ed.)(1991).Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history.New York, NY:Routledge.
17. Gubriu, J. F.(ed.),Holstein, J. A.(ed.)(2002).Handbook of interview research.London, UK:Sage.
18. Hammersley, M.(2003).Recent radical criticism of interview studies: Any implications for the sociology of education?.British Journal of Sociology of Education,24,119-126.
19. Haraway, D. J.(1991).Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature.New York, UK:Routledge.
20. Harvey, R.,Brown, K. S.,Miller, B.,Williams-Reade, J.,Tyndall, L.,Murphy, M.(2016).Theory into research practice: Reflections and recommendations on collaborative feminist research.Journal of Feminist Family Therapy,28(4),136-158.
21. Hoffmann, E. A.(2007).Open-ended interviews, power, and emotional labor.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,36,318-346.
22. Kuhn, T. S.(1996).The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
23. Kvale, S.(1994).Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews.Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,25,147-173.
24. Lee, D.(1997).Interviewing men: Vulnerabilities and dilemmas.Women’s Studies International Forum,20,553-564.
25. Miller, T.,Birch, M.,Mauthner, M.,Jessop, J.(2012).Ethics in qualitative research.London, UK:Sage.
26. O’Grady, E.(2016).Research as a respectful practice: An exploration of the practice of respect in qualitative research.Qualitative Research in Education,5,229-254.
27. Padfield, M.,Procter, I.(1996).The effect of interviewer’s gender on the interviewing process: A comparative enquiry.Sociology,30,355-366.
28. Potter, J.,Hepburn, A.(2005).Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities.Qualitative Research in Psychology,2,281-307.
29. Rabinowitz, P.,游惠貞（譯）(2000).誰在詮釋誰：紀錄片的政治學.臺北:遠流.
30. Roberts, H.(ed.)(1981).Doing feminist research.London, UK:Heinemann.
31. Rose, G.(1997).Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics.Progress in Human Geography,21,305-320.
32. Schwalbe, M.,Wolkomir, M.(2001).The masculine self as problem and resource in interview studies of men.Men and Masculinities,4,90-103.
33. Shesterinina, A.(2019).Ethics, empathy, and fear in research on violent conflict.Journal of Peace Research,56,190-202.
34. Silverman, D.(2006).Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction.London, UK:Sage.
35. Silverman, D.(ed.)(1997).Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice.London, UK:Sage.
36. Smith, J. A.(ed.)(2003).Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods.London, UK:Sage.