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