When emotions count in construction of interview data

Abstract

This article highlights the significance of a methodology that includes the emotions as an integral element in the construction and analysis of data. The research question is: how can an emotional self-awareness of the researcher on data contribute towards understanding and knowledge. The objective is to display how reflections on the emotions of the researchers provide increased depth of the construction of the data and the topic studied. The empirical data have been obtained from two PhD projects on child and family contact with child protection authorities in Norway. The sampled material derives from situations in the interviews that particularly affected us emotionally and which we reflected on several years after the interviews took place. Through a re-analysis of the interview process, we display how the researchers constructed the data and how we, in the original research, overlooked important questions. Our analytical approach in the original project as in this re-analysis is constructivist interactionism. For the re-analysis, we both draw on the epistemology of emotion and the concept ‘account’. The article contributes to the development of methods by demonstrating how analysis might be made more reflective and transparent by taking the emotions of the researcher into account. The implication for practice is that we recommend a ‘re-consideration’ of data when one is emotionally aroused, and also to engage associates in the analysis.

Keywords:

• epistemology of emotions
• accounts
• social work research
• data construction
• qualitative method

Introduction

Within the field of child protection research as for social science generally, the research object in qualitative research is an ambiguous phenomenon constructed in the interaction between the interviewee and the researcher. The meaning of the phenomenon studied is determined contextually and situationally in the interview process between the researcher and the interviewee.

Qualitative research frequently has, as its objective, to reveal meaning and understandings that are taken for granted. But, the researcher might have his or her ‘blind spots’ in the research process, without being aware of it. In reflection and discussion on our research where children and parents in contact with child protection authorities had been a source of data, two of the authors of this article, became aware of how we acted differently when we were emotionally affected during the interviewing. One became offensive, the other became withdrawn.

Child protection research is influenced by evidence-based research methodology where quantitative research is the predominant approach and randomised control trials are set as gold standard. Working as we did in environment dominated by medicine and psychology, our discussions made us aware of that we had not reflected enough on our personal impact neither in the interview process nor in the analysis of data. We had focused only on the cognitive articulated aspects of the interview as many other qualitative researchers do (Ezzy 2010). In theory, we supported a methodology that claims the subjective and interpretive process, but in practice strove to achieve a presentation where the researcher remained indiscernible in the data compilation and its analysis. For example, none of us had questioned the role of our previous professional training (social worker and pedagogue) on the research process.

The context of an interview situation consists of the researcher’s understanding of the actual project, its objectives, research questions, theoretical assumptions, his or her knowledge and experience of the topic studied as well as the personal aspects of the researcher. The interpretation of what the interviewee says is constructed in the context.

The research question for this article is: how can an emotional self-awareness of the researcher on data contribute towards understanding and knowledge? The objective is to display how reflections on the emotions of the researchers open up for a re-analysis of the construction of data and provide increased depth of the topic studied. Through acknowledging emotionally sensed knowledge, the researcher might gain insight which she cognitively was not aware of. Our area of research, child protection and social work, are fields involving emotions both of the interviewee as well as the researcher. By highlighting an emotional epistemology, the analysis might be more reflective and transparent.

Interviewing people in problematic, disadvantaged and vulnerable situations is a demanding task that requires reflexivity and self-awareness of the researchers. Reflexivity has become a way of responding to the complexity of handling qualitative research and helping researchers to maintain self-awareness (Doyle 2012). Emotions that are evoked while doing research can be used by the researcher as signposts helping to understand and contextualise what the researcher may have taken for granted. ‘Reflexivity is about the researchers‘own reactions to the study, their position and location in the study, and the relationships encounters, which are reciprocal’ (Holloway and Biley 2011, 971). This article highlights the significance of a methodology that includes the emotions of the researcher as an integral element in the analysis of the construction of the data. We introduced a third researcher to support our reanalysis of the parts of the interview material which had affected us emotionally. We re-examine parts of the material in order to reveal aspects that had been overlooked.

The theoretical framework

We understand the creation and meaning of data as social products that are formed in and through the defining activities of the researcher and interviewee as they interact. Our analytical approach in our previous research projects as it is here, is constructivist interactionism as has been further developed by Järvinen (2001, 2005). In this article, we add and emphasise an epistemology of emotion in order to study how the emotional self-awareness of the researcher may contribute in analysis and construction of data. The epistemology of emotion refers to the comprehension of how emotion in the research process contributes towards understanding and knowledge. From a constructivist interpretative perspective, interviewers are deeply and unavoidably involved in creating meanings that apparently reside within respondents. Both the interviewer and interviewee are involved in this process (Holstein and Gubrium 2003, 4). Denzin (1999, 312) puts it this way: ‘Language and speech do not mirror experience; they create experience, and in the process of creation constantly transform that which is being described’. We will add that emotions as well as language and speech create experience. From a constructivist point of view, Bourdieu, Wacquant and Nicolaysen (1993) argue that work to construct the research object is a fundamental part of the research process. In order to avoid that our research will repeat our presupposition, it is important to understand that the researcher actively do influence the story created. Interview person’s subjectivity is not a private, individual unit that researchers are required to extract knowledge from. The interview situation is a social interaction where experiences interpreted and meaning is created (Flemmen and Eriksen 2009). Focus on the material’s ambiguity and context dependence is important for our approaches. The parts of the interview where the researcher acted emotionally is a point of departure to study researchers´ presuppositions of the actual topic studied.

An example of the interpretive function of emotion is the study on identity negotiations (Järvinen 2001). The interviewee (alcoholics) struggled to defend an alternative identity for themselves – than the one the interviewer had. Through focusing on her feelings during the interview, the interviewee illuminated the therapeutic framework of the study. For more examples of the interpretive function of emotion, see (Behar 1996; Hubbard, Backett-Milburn, and Kemmer 2001; Lee-Treweek and Linkogle 2000). For ways of researching emotions such as Memory work and Psychosocial approaches, see Holland (2007, 201).

Emotionally sensed knowledge has been increasingly acknowledged in social research (Cylwik 2001; Game 1997; Holland 2007; Hubbard, Backett-Milburn, and Kemmer 2001; Knowles 2006; Wilkins 1993). The development of the sociology of emotion has identified the significance of emotion in everyday life (Young and Lee 1996 in Hubbard, Backett-Milburn, and Kemmer 2001, 119) and is based upon the acknowledgement that what people feel is socially constructed (Turner 2005, 2). Through this perspective knowledge is created through our experiences of the world as a sensuous and affective activity (Game 1997). Holland interprets Game as follows: ‘Emotion is a way of knowing the world, emotions are the means by which we make sense of, and relate to, our physical, natural and social world’ (Holland 2007, 198). Emotions are

complexes, rather than things, ones that are multi-dimensional in their composition: they only arise within relationships, but they have a corporeal, embodied aspect as well as a socio-cultural one. (…) Emotions are not expressions of inner processes, but are modes of communication within relationships and interdependencies. (Burkitt 1997, 37)

Melrose (2002) states that there has been little specific advice about ‘question strategies’ in sensitive research. She argues that this may ‘leave researchers feeling methodologically vulnerable, verging on the distressingly incapable, because of emotional and anxiety challenges’ (2002, 338). Extra caution has to be given about one’s own preconceptions. According to the epistemology of emotion, researchers have to ‘position themselves in relations to their research, consider the impact of research encounters on data, and reflect on what researchers “bring” to their investigation and how this impacts on what they “discover”’. (Knowles 2006, 394). In doing so, the researcher places both himself and the interviewees at the centre of the research (Cylwik 2001, 243). The use of emotions as data can provide a mirror through which the taken for granted by the researcher can be made visible (Cylwik 2001, 243). The feelings seen as problematic can in this perspective, turn out to be a guide to deeper insight (Knowles 2006, 402). According to Wilkins (1993, 96), first, a researcher’s emotional responses have the ability to alert him or her to meanings and behaviours of the interviewees; second, emotion has an interpretive function because it enables the researcher to gain intuitive insight, and inchoate knowledge arises. It was this insight that we did not follow up in the first analysis of the material, and which we now pay attention to.

Method

The empirical data for this article have been obtained from two projects on child and family contact with child protection authorities in Norway. The first project concerns care provided by relatives to children and youth in state custody (Holtan 2008; Holtan and Eriksen 2006). The second project concerns children’s participation in family group conferences (Skivenes and Strandbu 2006). One interview with Mary, a mother with her child in foster care from the first project, and two interviews with Frank, a young boy from the second project, comprise the empirical bases for this article. Mary’s interviewer was a social worker and sociologist, and Frank’s was a teacher and pedagogue. The interviews were part of the two researchers’ PhD projects.

Analysis

The sampled material derives from situations in the interviews that particularly affected us emotionally and which we reflected on more than five years after the interviews took place. In the analysis, we look critically at the questions posed, the dialogue and the creation of meaning in the parts of the interviews where the researcher acted emotionally. We read through the raw material from the interviews and studied our contributions to the story. We compared each other reactions, confronted each other with questions that could have been asked, sudden turns in the interview, situations where the interviewer followed one of several possible lines indicated by the interviewee. We looked closer at the thinking behind questions which were leading or value based. We analysed the meaning created by the researcher on the basis of the interviews, and alternative viewpoints which could have been established.

The interviews are about the stories of self. The history of a person continues to be reconstructed while thinking about and presenting ourselves. The cultural processes that guide the self-telling acquire the power to structure experience and build life events (Järvinen 2001, 267). In the re-analysis of the interviews, we make use of the concept: ‘account’ (Austin 1956; Coffey and Atkinson 1996, 99–102; Järvinen 2001). We define an account as a way of telling our story ‘designed to recast the pejorative significance of action, or one’s responsibility for it, and thereby transform others’ negative evaluation’. (Buttny 1993, 1). Accounts are constructed through the human capacity to be blamed, charged and held responsible. Accounts can be divided into two categories: justifications and excuses. The logic of justification is when we accept responsibility for an event, but denies that it was bad. With excuses, we admit that it was bad but do not accept the negative responsibility for it (Austin 1956). Accounts serve to transform the negative evaluation of others and contribute to reintegrate the self into the moral order of society. Social work practice is often about under-privileged people in stigmatised life situations where the concept of account is relevant to the analysis. The two interviewees in our research were both in social situations where their way of life was either condemned or not accepted. Both excuses and justifications of accounts will often represent some failure and abnormality. To study them will help to throw light on the normal (Austin 1956). In our re-engagement with the material, the data are re-analysed, and this is followed by a description of the researcher’s experiences during the interview. Finally, an analysis is undertaken of the researcher’s personal and emotional contribution to the original analysis of the text.

Ethical approval for the PhD projects was given by the regional Ethical Committee and the Norwegian Data Inspectorate. Confidentiality of the presented cases in this article is respected. Considerations on research ethics centres, on the one hand, on the actual permission and the interests of those involved in the study. On the other hand, research ethics deal with the actual quality and trustworthiness of the research results. As such research ethic and emotions might be closely linked. Since the analysis is in progress throughout the whole interview, the feelings of the interviewer may have implications for further questions in the interview. The researcher can for example unconsciously desire to present the interviewees positively, particularly in emotionally strong interview situations. The consequence might be that other possible interpretations are overlooked. We will claim that to critically deconstruct our personal impact on the interviewee and on our interpretations of our data, are important ethical dimensions in qualitative research.

Situations which aroused emotions

Mary’s story

Mary – a woman in her late 30s, had a daughter, Anna, who was in the foster care of her brother. Anna was seven years old at the time of the interview and had resided with Mary’s brother since she was about one. Mary had relinquished responsibility for care as she felt unable to meet the responsibility of motherhood. When Anna was four, Mary won her appeal to have the child returned to her care. However, she subsequently chose to allow the daughter to continue to live with her brother. When re-analysing the interviews in connection with this article, we found two opposing stories of Mary’s choice of not taking her child back. Each story encompasses several themes. The first story presented involves obstruction and shame. The second is concerned with dignity, strength, choice and maternal love. Both the stories can be understood as accounts. The fact that two different stories are involved manifests the ambivalence of Mary’s understanding of her life situation. During the interview, these stories became intertwined with each other. We present the stories individually as far as this has been possible.

The story of obstruction and shame

The first theme in this story, obstruction, emerged when she spoke about giving up responsibility for the child. She described herself as young, pregnant, lonely and without support from her family and the child’s father.

I had heard, right from the time my tummy began to swell, that I could never be a mother … If someone had constantly kicked your feet from under you … then you would finally have given up. That’s what happened. I ‘threw in the towel’!

As an account, the story of obstruction can be understood as a search for reducing her anticipated censure of her decision to relinquish responsibility for the child.

The second theme, shame, is revealed in her search for self-respect by emphasising the differences with other mothers in contact with the child protection authorities.

We come from a community where no-one had previously had contact with social services. This was a service for losers. I was the only one who had visited the social protection office, and I was scared to death that this would leak out.

The shame was also linked to the fact that her relinquishment of the child was done voluntarily: ‘you are a bad mother if you relinquish you own child; you are confronted with numerous silly questions and classed as a drug addict’.

Mary is referring to condemnation as a caring person (bad mother) and as a marginalised member of society (drug addict). It is for such situations where the individual is blamed, charged and held responsible, that the account is designed to transform others’ negative evaluation. The actor admits the negative character of actions but denies responsibility (excuse).

The story of dignity, strength, choice and maternal love

The negative evaluations of others in the previous story stand in contrast to the dignity of thinking of the child first and setting one’s own needs aside. These are the central elements in the story of dignity.

Mary said that she had worked for a considerable time to arrange custody of Anna. When Anna was four, her right to custody was granted by the authorities. In the interview, she talked about the days after she had been informed of the resolution, and her decision to relinquish these rights again. This had a pronounced effect on the interviewer. Mary said:

Yes, so Anna was lying down and crying, and finally I understood what it was about. Yes, uncle and aunt would die if she moved and the others would then hate her and me. I think that it was these words which caused me to change my mind … that it was clear she had been thoroughly manipulated. And at the same time she looks up at me and says, ‘I love you’.

Mary continues with the story with Anna crying:

No, and it was then that I made the conscious decision that Anna should live with my brother. Anna and I sat by the fire, with the eiderdown around us and ate loads of buns and chatted … I felt that it was there we decided this was the best for her. But she was far too young to make any decisions for herself. But if you have nobody else, I then felt that this was the right choice.

Throughout this story, consideration of the best interests of the child emerges as a deliberate and responsible action. Seen in the light of the obstacles and poor judgement of her in the previous story, the action appears dignified through consideration of the child’s needs and the setting aside of her own.

In the re-analysis, the two stories emerged, reinforced each other. When we analysed the interview as account we found that the presentation of self of the interviewee was in line with the basic values of society. In this interview, both interviewer and interviewed shared these values.

The researcher’s contribution: compassion and identification

In an open-ended qualitative research approach, the interviewee will present topics which the researchers are not prepared for. This was the case in this study, where the basic questions were about the social integration of children in foster care. With Mary and her story, a new dimension appeared – giving up a child – a topic which the interviewer was not prepared for. In such cases, the account might be more difficult to catch.

For the interviewer, this was a strong and credible account. She became engrossed in the story and experienced the condemnation of Mary as unjustifiable and prejudiced. The unjustness of the community and the mother’s unselfish love made the interview even more touching. In the re-analysis of the interviews, we found that the two stories concerning the best interests of the child (justification) and the obstruction of the community (excuse) fused into one. The understanding that she acted as a responsible person while simultaneously being condemned by the community contributed to the warmth and care the interviewer felt for her. At one point, the interviewer revealed her interpretation of Mary’s story by asking: ‘Have you heard about that play called The Caucasian Chalk Circle? It concerns a mother and a stepmother pulling a baby between them, but the mother releases her hold fearing that the child will be injured’. The question signified the association with Mary, as a mother who is willing to relinquish her child on account of her love. Through this contribution to the conversation, the interviewer confirmed Mary’s account. The interviewer followed up by asking if she was proud of what she did, a leading question based on her presumption that Mary had acted in the best interests of her daughter. Mary’s answered:

No. A mother shall fold her wings around the child and protect her at any cost and hold her close. Yes, I did this … I am quite convinced that what I did was the absolute best for Anna, and I am confident that I was very strong at that precise moment in managing this, and I did not break down afterwards. I think: ‘What a strong character’ … that’s me!

The interview was like a dance; the interviewee led, the interviewer followed. She became blind to other possible interpretations. The interview material was largely Mary’s own presentation in which they shared the interpretation.

The main problem with this interview from a methodological point of view was that the interviewee became caught in the story. Questions that explored other meanings were lacking. The focus on the researcher’s emotional reactions alerted us to questions which could have been asked about Mary’s ambivalence, such as: what do you mean by ‘manipulated’ [mentioned three times]? How do you think it was for the child to live with people who were manipulating her? What do you think that the child’s care situation will be like? What do you think it will imply for the child to be without you? What would have made you happy in taking the child back? How would you have been able to take care of the child? (From a social work point of view, these questions are confronting.) The intention of qualitative research is to understand the others point of view. The combination of an open-ended interview approach (a research strategy) and ‘active listening’ (a social work strategy) worked together.

The first stage of understanding how the researcher can overlook important questions is the story’s cultural recognition.

In telling our life histories we have to make use of culturally legitimate story instruments and ingredients, acceptable conceptions of causes and effects, and established definitions of goals and means – if we want to convince our listeners (and ourselves) of the adequacy of our stories. (…) Finding plausible causes and effects, goals and means, seems a tricky affair, especially in stories dealing with negative courses of action. (Järvinen 2001, 267)

The story reflected cultural conceptions of maternal love with its similarities to Bertolt Brecht’s play, The Caucasian Chalk Circle (1999). In this play, two women appear in court to fight for custody of the child. The judge devises an unconventional scheme to decide who should be given the child – the test of the chalk circle. The core of the story of Mary about parting with the child, with consideration for the child (justification) – and the circumstances around obstruction and shame (excuse) – emerge as the only genuine versions, and not as interpreted actions where others could have been explored and found to be possible. By relating these actions to the value of maternal love, any shame is removed.

Emphasising the emotional parts of the interview in the re-analysis showed that this interview was an account in line with the basic values of society giving a respectful face to the storyteller. To explore the phenomenon of mothering without custody is an area where other concepts are needed for example gender and power. As such this part of the previous research became too superficial.

Another aspect of this re-analysis is based on Goffman’s perspective that

the self, and how others see it, is the basic organising principle of social interaction. … What any accounter receives is not what he or she deserves but what will sustain, for the moment, the lines to which the participants have committed themselves.

The line is defined as a pattern of acts by which persons present a specific view of themselves and other participants in social interaction. (Järvinen 2001, 268). The fact that the researcher showed compassion and sympathised with the story contributed to a line where the image of Mary was positively valued.

‘Saving face’ – the interviewer’s credibility as a researcher – was also at stake during the interview. It was important for the interviewer to extract the actor’s story in ethically proper manner, and to carry out a constructive interview. The interview situation became intense, both on account of the story but also as a consequence of the fact that confidence was shown in the interviewer through the open-hearted presentation, in line with findings from Hubbard, Backett-Milburn and Kemmer (2001, 128). The interviewer and the interviewee progressed towards a situation where neither of them lost face, and neither of them was challenged in their self-presentation, neither in their understandings nor in their values.

Through this re-analysis, we discovered how the researcher during the interview and in the original analysis did not challenge the cultural meaning of motherhood. By the lack of questioning of other lines in the interview, and without detecting her emotional contribution to the analysis, further understandings about a mother giving up the custody of a child diminished.

Frank’s story

Frank, aged 15, had lived with his mother, stepfather and their child until he was 12. Because of conflicts with the stepfather, he then moved in with his biological father. Conflicts arose in the relationship with the father, and after a year he moved back again. The relationship with the stepfather did not improve, and for a year he lived with his aunt and uncle. After stealing money from his aunt and uncle, his relationship with them became fragile as well. The last year he had therefore lived partly with friends, and partly with relatives. The child protection authorities wanted stability in his life and planned to find a foster home. Family group conferencing, a decision-making model where the extended family comes together (Marsh and Crow 1998), was arranged on two occasions to discuss whether the family network had any solutions to the boy’s nomadic life. As a result of these two meetings, Frank moved in with Karl, a friend of the father. In the interviews with Frank, the researcher wanted to explore Frank’s views concerning both the solution to living apart from his family and his participation in the decision-making process.

In the first interview, Frank said that he was pleased with the solution of living with Karl. But when the researcher asked him to wave a magic wand in order to explore his situation from another angle, Frank said that he wished to win lots of money. In his dreams, he would buy a house where he could live with his mother and his siblings, with no stepfather involved. In real life, Frank was the one excluded.

In the re-analysis of the interviews, we saw that the conversation between Frank and the researcher wavered between Frank’s version of independence and autonomy, and the interviewer’s focus on dependency, vulnerability and the child’s need for stability. It became clear how the researcher’s focus had dominated both the interview process and the first analysis. In the following section, we present the data where elements from both stories are present. We question why one of them had dominated.

The main story: dependency, vulnerability and love

Towards the end of the second interview, the interviewer asked Frank what was most important in his life:

Frank: ‘I can tell you what I am thinking. That is not a problem; there are three main things in my life. It is not stability (he laughs) but money, a place to stay and food … Actually I don’t give a damn about that [stability]. You must have stability in your life … and all that nonsense. It just drives me crazy. It is as though I am to be treated like a small kid until I reach the age of 18, isn’t it?’

The researcher understood Frank’s situation to be difficult. He was left to his own devices and the researcher was concerned with what Frank essentially wanted.

Researcher: ‘Money, a place to stay and food … Who is the most important person in your life right now?’

Frank: ‘Heck! That was a good question. [He thinks a bit.] The most important person in my life right now? It must be me – just to be a bit self-centered’.

Frank was then asked who is the most important person other than himself. Frank replied that it was the second youngest sister, Sandra, just four years old. [she respected him as an independent individual]

Frank: ‘She looks up to me. She is … fond of me in a way in which no one else is. She loves me and … she is my favourite sister. She is never cheeky. All the others in my family are. She absolutely worships me.’

Researcher: ‘Are you as fond of her as she is of you?’

Frank: ‘She is my sister. She is the only one who can make me stay. That would have been hard’. [Earlier in the interview Frank stated that he had plans to ‘disappear’ if the resolution was that he was to be moved to a foster home.]

Researcher: ‘From what you say now, affection is important in your life?’

Frank: ‘Yes. Love of my brothers and sisters. [He turns his attention to the recorder]. Is that being recorded from where I am sitting now?’

Researcher: ‘Yes’.

Frank: ‘But right now I’ve got to go to the loo’.

By leaving the room the researcher interpreted the situation as if the young boy wanted to finish this part of the conversation. The researcher viewed both interviews with Frank as successful. Immediately after the interview, she was proud of having managed to generate dialogue and reflection with the boy. In her previous interviews, young people, had been silent, sharing only a few words. Frank was clear, reflective and responsive. Frank had confirmed that she had asked the essential questions. He confronted the researcher with his replies, and the researcher was able to challenge in turn. But the researcher nevertheless felt some discomfort. She was concerned that she might have pushed Frank too far. Her emotional concern alerted her to question why she had ‘pressed’ him regarding questions concerning relationships and affection. Her emotions functioned as a signpost to look critically at the questions she had emphasised and what her first analysis produced.

The researcher’s contribution: stereotypes – children in care

Through studying the elements of the material where she was emotionally aroused, the researcher became aware that she did not accept the significance of food, money and a place to live for Frank in his situation. It was not his own survival strategies which formed her focal point. Rather, it was the researcher’s own values and context that guided the path she followed while challenging him with questions on relations and affection. As a pedagogue your object is to educate and contribute to the maturity of children and youth. It was this story which dominated and was published. This occurred in spite of the fact that on several occasions Frank talked about independence and strength.

Although her research questions built on the sociology of childhood (James, Jenks, and Prout 1998) which understands children as social actors in socially constructed childhoods, she overlooked questions that might have been asked such as: what would you recommend that the child protection authorities decide? What kind of support do you need? When you say that stability in life is nonsense, what do you mean by stability? There is a debate in the sociology of childhood on children as ‘beings’ and children as ‘becomings’. In the perspective of ‘beings’, which was the basis of the actual research, children are competent actors understanding their lives. As we have seen the researcher did not pay sufficient attention to the competence that Frank showed in the interview.

On the other hand, Frank is neglected, rejected by parents and relatives. He is alone and his care situation is controlled by the child protection authorities. Frank’s story can be understood as an account, a presentation of self where he focuses on his strength and possibilities, in a situation which he could not control. Frank breached the cultural understanding of children’s need for care and protection by attaching importance to material things, independence and autonomy instead of family bonds, stability and affection. The researcher might have understood Frank´s presentation of self as an account – an excuse and justification of his life situation, which she did approve. In not following his account she both rejected his presentation of self as well as the focus of how neglected youth are making their life situation respected.

In her first analysis, the researcher did not explore Frank’s experience of being in a situation where others pointed to the need for foster care. What might have been an important contribution of children’s understanding of neglect and abuse was partly lost. Järvinen (2001) described a similar line of analysis in a study of alcoholics, where the project’s underlying therapeutic purpose affected the interviewer. The re-analysis of the interview with Frank provides important guidelines for negotiating more successfully with youth in situations where there are severe family conflicts. Children of different ages living in situations where there is a lack of care have different assumptions and desires relating to independence and a sense of belonging.

As in the interviews with Mary, there are two stories in the interviews with Frank. In the interview with Mary, it was Mary who introduced the two stories. In the interviews with Frank, one of them was the presentation Frank gave, the other was a story the interviewer initiated and wanted to explore. While the ‘dance’ between Mary and the interviewer was led by Mary; in Frank’s case, it was the interviewer who controlled the situation and led the dance. With Mary, the interviewer did not challenge the account of dignity in setting a mother’s need aside. With Frank, the interviewer did not research the presentation he gave (his account), but gave priority to what she found important concerning children’s welfare and care. We here also touch on the issue that researchers as persons differ in their attitudes towards challenging the interviewee. Another question (not treated here) is how to approach what the researcher interpret as excuses or justifications in interviews, from a research ethical point of view.

Concluding remarks

Researchers working within a culture with predominance of a positivist paradigm may feel vulnerable compared to their quantitative colleagues. For that reason qualitative researchers may overlook that knowledge is not objective, removed from our bodies, experiences and emotions. Knowledge is created through our experiences of the world as an affective activity (Game 1997). The relationships between personal stories, time and memory is a topic of research and theorising, see Riessman (2003, 341). Our re-analysis is undertaken several years later than the interviewing, and the re-analysis can be considered as reconstructions of the past (Bishop and Shepherd 2011). The time has contributed to detachment from data. Our identities as researchers are changed as we have become more experienced (Bishop and Shepherd 2011).

The article aims to contribute to the development of methods by demonstrating how analysis might be made more reflective and transparent by taking the emotions of the researcher into account. Our findings are in line with previous research in this area (Cylwik 2001; Ezzy 2010; Holland 2007; Knowles 2006; Melrose 2002). If our re-analysis had been conducted at the time of the analysis of the previous project, other topics and reflections might have emerged.

According to Riessman (2003, 335), ‘narrative excerpt can be analysed as an interactional accomplishment as a joint production of the interviewee and the respondent’. We focused our re-analysis on the emotional context. In both interview situations (Mary and Frank), the researchers paid attention to the lines in the interviews corresponding to their own underlying values. Mary’s interviewer supported the interviewee’s presentation without searching for different understandings; while Frank’s interviewer actively changed the direction of the interview that accorded with her understanding, both intellectually and emotionally.

In sociology, emotions sometimes have been associated with the irrational, and are thus quite opposed to the objective scientific search for knowledge. Lessons learned from this re-analysis include a need to reflect on emotions both in the interview situation as well as in the following analysis. In the analysis, we should have posed critical questions to test whether we were directing the analysis in a certain direction. We would be able to discover whether our analyses were characterised by values from our own basic training – the one as a social worker and later sociologist, the other as teacher and later pedagogue. The ‘social worker researcher’ projected positive values on the relinquishment of the child. The ‘teacher researcher’ attached importance to values relating to stability and care, as well as a pedagogical approach towards the young man. We argue that the interview process in qualitative research also depend on the actual researcher, his or her background as well as of the definition of the actual project. To have a methodological perspective on the researcher creating meaning through his or her defining activities is easy in theory, but not obvious in practice. It was not until this re-analysis that we detected the central values of our previous professional training.

We have described empirically how we coloured our interviews and interpretations by our educational and practical background. As research results may influence people’s life – the quality of research is important also from an ethical point of view. A reconstruction of the research process focusing on personal subjectivity and personal biography as we have showed should be an integrated part of the analysis. It gives possibilities to examine at least to some extent how personal assumptions shape data collection/construction and analysis.

We have chosen examples where the researchers were strongly touched in order to contribute to awareness about this topic. Only two projects are involved and from them only two extreme situations. Many situations from different projects and from different researchers would have given a richer material, other angles and findings.

In this article, we have made the researchers contribution in data construction transparent. We have revealed that our capacity to pose questions from different angles might be challenging when an interviewer is emotionally touched and where accounts are in play. We recommend a ‘re-consideration’ of data when one is emotionally aroused, and also to engage associates in the analysis. We will argue that doing so enables the researchers to gain further insight in the phenomenon studied.