Anyone interested in qualitative research in general, and interviewing in particular, is likely to find something relevant and useful in the last issue of Applied Linguistics (32/1), edited by Steven Talmy and Keith Richards.
I had to smile the other day when I pointed this collection out to someone about to complete her PhD. “No!” she cried. “I don’t want to see anything new about that now!” I do sympathise. It’s a feeling that anyone should recognise when they’re trying to finish something off. Intellectually, of course, you always want to be in touch with the latest thinking, even if it is “threatening”. And pragmatically, it can rarely do you any harm if your text shows that you are aware of what is happening in the current literature. A final word of warning, mind, you have to be sure that you have got your head around just what is being said in that new publication. As the ancient saying has it: It is better not to have referred at all and have people think that you are not aware, than refer inaccurately and have them think that you didn’t understand.
Another reason I smiled, I have to admit, was because this situation reminded me of probably my favourite line collected from the recent trip to New Orleans. There we were in a small boat, creeping along a bayou and heading towards some open water among the swamps, with hopes of alligators, water snakes, cormorants, herons, pelicans, egrets and all sorts ahead, when the woman in front of me looked down at her camera and said, “Oh no! My battery’s low. Hope we don’t see anything great!” I thought this was an even greater triumph for the digital world than the idea of kids playing video games all the sunlit, sunshiny day.
Oh, don’t let me get started on that front. IT is so much with us and dealing with information overload is truly a constant battle. On which topic, our colleague, Drew Whitworth, has made a study of this with his work on information obesity.
The trouble with that obesity parallel for me, mind, is that while my body sets certain parameters to help me judge and control the food that I put into my system, my intellect and imagination are not so clearly bounded. So, how small would a topic have to be for me have a shot at gathering even the truly authentic and legitimate information about it, even if I could make those evaluations accurately?
That can’t be the way forward. I think the answer must lie in changing one’s attitude to the status of what is that one wants to say. More than ever, and increasingly, we have to speak and act while knowing not only that our knowledge is incomplete, but that the information we lacked would have been available if only we had known where and how to look for it. Humility, a tolerance for uncertainty, and recognition that others are in the same boat seem to be the qualities required.
None of the above, I might add, have been apparent in the political scene here in Britain of late. We are about to vote in a referendum on changing the system according to which we elect our members of parliament. What has stood out most clearly for me has been the unspoken and unchallenged assumption that the best way to inform the public about the issue is to set up an argument between two people who have already made up their minds. This is Deborah Tannen’s (1998) Argument Culture in all its glory. Rather than any measured information about the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems, we are presented in all media with the unedifying spectacle of people talking past each other while trying to score points off each other. And then we are apparently meant to be surprised when the “debate” sinks into rounds of accusations of misrepresentation and name-calling. Your life in their hands. Oh yay.
On the other hand, meteorologically speaking, I hereby declare this to have been, thus far, the most beautiful British Springtime that I can ever remember.
And Stoke City in the FA Cup Final.
Best,
Julian