I think, on reflection, I have been anticipating and evaluating research conversations from a rather 'traditional' interview paradigm, in which (amongst other things):
- I focus on the audio 'product' of the session.
- I look for sections of speech that validate my theoretical frame.
- I focus on the 'correct' way to approach an 'interview'.
- I don't recognise how my investment into these interviews changes my behaviour and expectations.
Instead, through chatting with my second supervisor, I want to get back to a view of encounters with participants that is more about:
- Seeing the process as a more open process of discovery and creation, with the possibility of 'things not being as I saw them'.
- The 'product' not so much being an accurate historical record as a text (Ricoeur, 1992) which is something new, perhaps part fictional but all about their meaning making nevertheless.
- Worrying less about 'corrupting' the pure stories presented by participants, but being bold enough to try co-construction, all the time being explicit about respective roles in building narratives.