Some problems in understanding other people: analysing talk in research, counselling and psychotherapy Philip Burnard

Various problems associated with analysing interview transcripts are identified. asserted that such problems of analysis may also be problems associated with understanding other people in counselling and psychotherapy.

work

INTRODUCTION learning

(Burnard

1990),

of

I found

myself faced with the problem

of how to make

sense of interview

are various

mal methods from

data. There

of analysing

content

analysis

interviews, (Berg

1989)

for-

ranging to

the

development of grounded theory (Claser & Strauss 1967). Despite reading about these and other methods, to represent

the problem clearly

and

still remained: honestly

how

what other

people had meant when they had talked to me. In this paper,

I explore

of meaning.

Those

beyond research

some of those problems

problems

have

and in the domains

relevance

of counsell-

ing and psychotherapy. What all three things have in common is that they are characterised by one or more people trying to make sense of other peoples’ utterances. To return to interview analysis - the usual method of attempting to analyse interviews is to Philip Burnard PhD MSc RMN RGN DipN CertFd RNT, Director of Postgraduate Nursing Studies, Uriversity of Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XN, Wales (Requests for offprints to PI31 Manuscript accepted 28 August 1991 130

transcripts

of the

interview

(Field SCMorse 1985). In its most simple form, a

During a recent study of nurses’ perceptions experiental

with typed

It is

transcript spoken

is a literal representation during

an interview,

they were spoken (Burnard

of the words

in the order

&Morrison

that

1990). A

more complicated transcript will note pauses, emphases and so forth. A more detailed transcript, yet, is one which uses special notation acknowledge (Coulthard possible, detailed

accents,

emphases

& Montgomery then,

to find

representation

and

so

to on

198 1). It would seem oneself

with

a fairly

of what had been said

during an interview. What interview

struck

me

transcripts

when

I came

to analyse

was how poorly they com-

pared to the interviews

themselves.

While I had

thought the interview was lively and interesting, I found myself faced with a dry and fairly uninteresting set of typed pages. What could account for the differences between the interview and the paper recording of it? More subtlety, why did even the tape recording less interesting than the interview?

sound

INTERVIEWS AND TRANSCRIPTS A number of factors can be identified here. First, an interview is a dynamic, live event. Both the

interviewer

and the interviewee

student may be wondering

are responding

if he is ‘getting things

to each other in ways both verbal and non-verbal.

right’. He may feel under sufferance

Both

things about experiential

are

looking

at each

other

for

varying

to try to catch me out. Alongside

amounts of time. Both are noting, interpreting and responding to various sorts of non-verbal

of thinking

communication.

adaption

and feeling

Both (presumably)

are thinking

as they talk and listen. All of these

things are happening

alongside

the words being

Second,

each

person

is interpreting

what is

difficult

to see that

agenda’

all sorts

may be working

for the interviewee.

There

post hoc analyses

such hidden dimensions.

ledge this ‘instantaneous’ interview,

acknow-

interpretation.

In an

utterance

and

the moment

of hearing.

to me, must make one difference

the live interview and attempts

‘This, it

Further,

both

with a range

parties

come

of thoughts,

about the activity. The inter-view expecting or her performance to impress

feelings

Both people may want Both may want to score more

clever

One may want to disagree

with

says. And so on. It is with a wide range

of

being

motivations,

reasons

for

there

and

towards the whole process.

Sometimes,

it is possible

some of’ these

underlying

to above,

with a student strong feelings

of.

possible. to begin

\‘ery few‘approaches chotherapy position. Kogerian.

of such

that is said at face in c~ounselling

to interpret

and

what the

make

and psy-

their

counsellor.

theoretical

clearly adopts

(Ha11 i 9184) whilst

counselling

also adopts

view of the person (Burnard

1967).

that people

therapy

position

client-centred

Rogers

1 wanted to hear. At this point, I asked

to have at

theory

to counselling

Psychodynamic

an interview

was ‘best guess-

rends

are free of a particular

I found during

and trying to tell me what he

the

client says through this framework of theorv rather than just /lste~i,~~q to what rhe client says.

a particular

I was experiencing

the

I

Some problems in understanding other people: analysing talk in research, counselling and psychotherapy.

Various problems associated with analysing interview transcripts are identified. It is asserted that such problems of analysis may also be problems as...
630KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views