When you interview people in ACI3633 (Module Three) or plan to in ACI3622 (Module Two) how have you composed who they are? Are they informants, participants, respondents? All these words have slightly different meanings that reflect how you see who they are, how you value them.
Sometimes people suggest they will give participants in interviews the names ‘Interviewee 1’, ‘Interviewee 2.This is to give them anonymity. But this kind of anonymity makes them less like humans and more like test tubes.
If you give them pseudonym, what names will you choose? Will the name reflect a gender, a cultural background? how does it matter to you? If someone is called Lisa Bennet in 'real' life what effect does calling that person Rashmi Patel have on how the reader views the interviewee? How does what are you doing about the their gender they are presenting. Does their name need to reflect that? Is it your job to police how the reader perceives the interviewee? What of the interviewee's identity is it important to imply and what does not matter? these are all choices about what you see as significant to the inquiry. These are ethical considerations. There is not a correct way for everyone to follow but there is an incorrect way to do this and that is to make choices you have not thought about. To just do something because you thought that was what you were told to do. What you do has to make sense to you. You have to participate….
Other blogs on participants can be read here:
More food for thought on this:
What do you feel? Comment below....