Reflecting on the interviews I have undertaken to date has made me increasingly aware of my responsibilities within the interview.  Responsibility lies both to the participant and their well being, and also to the data and what I do with it through the analytic process, and also ultimately to myself and my well-being.

The standard mantra is that interviewing is a process of data generation rather than simply data gathering, true but not quite so simplistic.  The interaction between interviewer and interviewee creates a number of outputs: new insights and perspectives for both parties; new knowledge; a memory long since forgotten; links between memories creating a new previously unthought of connection.  The list of possibilities goes on; and what of my input?  Is the interview one person's story or is it an interaction between two people?  If I am asked for an answer to a question, do I decline or is it in fact part of the interview process that adds to the data generation, making facts meet in a logical and sensible way?  If I expect them to 'expose' themselves within an interview, is it not a 2 way process to a certain degree where I have a responsibility to feed back to them too, is it just 'take' or is it 'give and take'?

Probing in the interview - some areas of the participants stories are traumatic, often to do with childhood abuse, certainly a cause defined by them for their depression and as the interview progresses and as trust and comfort with the process increases, interviewees often tell much in detail.  What is my role? - I think to listen and let them tell their story, surely to probe too much into traumatic life stories borders on the voyeuristic as is the detail relevant to the research question, no I do not think so.  However, having got the participant to a place to tell their story, I must allow them to tell their story, to cut them short or tell them that part of their story is irrelevant is surely irresponsible and will damage the interviewer-interviewee relationship if nothing else.

What do I leave the participant with?  Has it been a good experience to retell their story?  Has it churned up old memories?  In the aftermath of the interview, was it worthwhile for them?  My immediate response is that yes I think it is from their responses at the end of the interview; many people underestimate their depression experience; comments such as 'I hope there was something useful in there that will help', 'I hope I haven't wasted your time', or 'I had forgotten lot's of that' are frequently said.  So, yes, in the immediate period after the interview, participants seem to be grateful for having the opportunity of talking about their depression; does that feeling stay or change as they have more time to reflect upon what they have said and possibly my responses to them?

The data - what I do with that, how I tell their stories and make my story, my report, my thesis is so important - all this time and effort - a huge responsibility to ensure I do the participants and the data justice.

In-depth interviews - run of the mill qualitative stuff, or is it?  Something to think about; something to look into, to see what research has been done about the impact of interviewing on the participants...........