Steeves!

(Mis)Apprehending positivism as interpetivism: A recipe for violence as sine qua non of qualitative inquiry -

Rubin & Rubins (1995) Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data is marketed as a comprehensive, up-todate introduction to the theory and practice of qualitative interviewing. Revised editions were released in 2005 and 2012, so it is fair to say that Rubin & Rubin have more or less established themselves as experts within the field of qualitative interviewing (QI). With that said, in this brief analysis I would like to diagram the onto-epistemologic horizons of Rubin & Rubins (1995) approach to QI. In so doing, I hope to stress the necessity of theory as well as the need for integrating philosophically-informed concepts with interview methods and analysis. To begin with, I should add a note of clarification regarding my use of onto-epistemology. On a reductive level onto-epistemology insinuates a conjunction between knowing and being, mind and body, thought and reality. Following Deleuze & Guattari (1987), however, onto-epistemology might be thought of as a strategy for becoming otherwise. Or, to borrow from Nietzsche, we must learn to think differently - in order to attain even more: to feel differently [emphasis in the original] (Nietzsche, 1982, p. 103). Here I mean to emphasize the fact that concepts shape the horizons of our thought, and the horizons of our thought shape the horizons of our being - or becomings. An implication of this is that thinly-theorized concepts constrain the field of possibility, and leave us trapped and shackled in cages of our own devising (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983; Reich, 1974). In essence, the cage which is constructed and naturalized by Rubin & Rubin (1995) relies on a blueprint for centering subjects within voice and has an ironically-naive foundation in positivism. To put it differently, Rubin & Rubin (1995) advance a model of QI which inadvertently legitimates the essentialization of subjects as voices. This reading of Rubin & Rubins project contradicts the authors posturing as other than positivist, but can be justified by illustrating some of the authors lexical choices. Although Rubin & Rubin (1995) acknowledge that data that is retrieved from qualitative interviews should be treated with due care, less emphasis is made in problematizing the translation of voice into meaning - or data. That is to say, for Rubin & Rubin the subject can be found in voice, and voice can not only be unproblematically translated into data but also invested with identity or truth. For example, Rubin & Rubin suggest that QI can help researchers understand experiences (p. 1), share the world of others (p. 5), and achieve real understanding (p. 18). More explicitly, the authors argue that the purpose of qualitative interviewing is to hear and understand what

Steeves!

the interviewees think and to give them public voice (p. 19). From within this paradigm, the researcher is like a photographer, making choices about what to frame within the picture, but reproducing exactly what is there (p. 30). To achieve this exact reproduction, the researcher must hear the meaning of what is being said [emphasis in the original] (p. 7). To rephrase and reiterate, for Rubin & Rubin, successful qualitative interviewing entails authenticity and accuracy in representing the essential truths conveyed through voice. According to Rubin & Rubin (1995), their preferred approach to qualitative interviewing reacts against the limits of the positivist research model (p. 31). The authors describe positivism as a system of thought which is generally dismissive towards the importance of cultural distinctions in its search for rules or laws, like those of physics, that apply to all people all the time (p. 32). Moreover, the authors link positivism with a commitment to quantitative precision and an accumulation of facts, and describe it as a system of building an ever-closer approximation to a reality that exits independent of human perception (p. 32). Rubin & Rubin categorically distance themselves from positivism, going so far as to claim that their approach differs most dramatically from the positivist model (p. 32). They also argue that the idea that there may be several different realities, that is, different constructions of events by the participants, an idea that underlies qualitative interviewing, is unacceptable in quantitative positivism (p. 33). At this point I would suggest that Rubin & Rubins rhetorical posturing can be meaningfully contrasted with Elizabeth St. Pierre (2008). In Decentering voice in qualitative inquiry St. Pierre notes that Rubin & Rubins (1995) brand of interpretivism is still very dependent on positivism (2008, p. 319). In fact, St. Pierre goes so far as to claim that approaches to qualitative interviewing which center subjects within voices are actually unthinkable without positivism (p. 319). With extraordinary candor, St. Pierre concedes that she find[s] the unexamined celebration of voice in qualitative research increasingly tiresome (p. 319). Here I find myself in alignment with St. Pierre, and share in her incredulity towards those who believe that language can transport meaning, unmediated, from one unified subject to another, say, in an interview (p. 320). This (in)directly implicates Rubin & Rubin (1995), who advance a model of qualitative interviewing which can be characterized as phonocentric: Phon, in effect, is the signifying substance given to consciousness as that which is most intimately tied to the thought of the signified concept. From this point of view, the voice is consciousness itself [emphasis in the original] (Derrida, 1981, p. 22). Above and beyond a phonocentric centering of subjects within voices, Rubin & Rubin also implicitly insinuate that

Steeves!

the meaning of an utterance is what is present to the consciousness of the speaker, what he or she has in mind, at the moment of the utterance (Culler, 1982). This obsession with the voices of participants as the primary, most authentic data (evidence) ... results in the eclipse and disappearance of other data (evidence) that is surely unacknowledged and unaccounted for in a study and, thus, weak analysis and the recycling of old ideas (St. Pierre, 2008, p. 332). Although in-class discussions have emphasized the co-construction of knowledge produced via qualitative interviewing, less attention has been given to problematizing the centering of subjects within voices. Likewise, while postmodernism has more or less been privileged as an epistemologically-sound meta-narrative, no attention has been given to poststructuralism or its post-foundational variants. This is significant in that poststructural thought specifically speaks to issues of presence, space, and time, and challenges phonocentric approaches to qualitative interviewing. More explicitly, poststructuralism offers an alternative to the positivistic centering of subjects within voices, and powerful critiques of Rubin & Rubins (1995) interpretivist approach to qualitative interviewing. Be that as it may, for Rubin & Rubin method trumps theory, simplification trumps depth, and transcendence trumps immanence. Thus, it is fortunate that our readings in Rubin & Rubin are supplemented with Kvale & Brinkmann (2009), whom I shall introduce in the next monograph.

References: Culler, J. (1982). On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. Lane, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 1977). Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 1980) Derrida, J. (1981). Positions (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (original work published in 1972) Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nietzsche, F. (1982). Daybreak: Thoughts on the prejudices of morality (R. Hollingdale, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Reich, W. (1974). Listen, little man! (R. Manheim, Trans.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. St. Pierre, E. (2008). Decentering voice in qualitative inquiry. International Review of Qualitative Research, 1(3), 319-336.