Cross-Cultural Qualitative Interviewing
In the ideal world, the primary language
and culture of the qualitative interviewer matches that of the
interviewee. But, as the diversity of our population increases, the
likelihood that a white American researcher will be called upon to
interview a person from a non-Western culture increases exponentially.
It’s happened to me several times: a client asks me to conduct
qualitative interviews with people who speak a different language or
have grown up in a culture different than my own. Though it’s a
challenging assignment, it’s one I welcome and continue to learn to
navigate.
In my last blog article,
I featured 13 cultural norm differences between Americans and
non-Westerners as described by Robert Kohls. Non-Westerners can easily
be put off by the communication style of Americans, who they often
perceive as outgoing, assertive, competitive, and extremely talkative.
As a qualitative interviewer, it’s important to have some insight into
these differences.
Context vs. content
So how does one effectively listen cross-culturally? How does one
sensitively gather accurate information from someone who likely grew up
in a culture in which a word, a look, a question, or a comment can
easily take on a very different meaning?
Beyond a basic understanding of cultural communication differences,
context is key. Cultures can be distinguished as being either “high
context” or “low context.”
- Low context cultures pay more attention to the content of what is said and less to the context in which the expression is made.
- High context cultures pay less attention to what is actually said
than to how it is said, who said it, or the circumstance within which it
was verbalized.
In general, Americans are characterized as a low context culture, and many non-Western cultures as high-context cultures.
When listening cross-culturally, a qualitative interviewer from a low
context culture must take into account not only language differences,
but contextual variations as well. Some of the things we as qualitative
interviewers must consider include: who best to ask the questions, how
questions should be posed, who should or should not be present, what
questions to ask, the most appropriate setting for the interview, the
type of introduction and ground rules, the tenor/pace of the
questioning, and how to read cues that something isn’t working.
Preparing for an intercultural interview
Preparing for an intercultural interview requires additional
consideration beyond customary question design and delivery protocols.
At a minimum, it involves consulting with someone from the interviewee’s
culture to gain contextual understanding and awareness of
cultural-specific communication norms. It might also mean making changes
in the study design—everything from recruitment strategies to question
development to interview structure—to accommodate important cultural
expectations. Very often it means hiring an interpreter/translator or
training someone from the interviewee’s culture to conduct the
interview.
Strategies for bridging cross-cultural differences
When I am not able to contract with a culturally appropriate
professional interviewer or train a person indigenous to the culture, I
work through an interpreter to conduct the interviews myself. It takes
patience and extra time, but I appreciate the opportunity to look into
the faces of those I am interviewing, even if I cannot understand their
words. I pretend as if they are speaking directly to me.
Though I’m far from an expert on intercultural interviewing, I have
gleaned several insights from these experiences. I’ve included a few
here that you might want to consider:
Personal control over environment
Unlike self-empowered
Americans, some cultures believe many things happen for reasons beyond
their own intervention. As interviewers, we must listen closely for
these cultural differences to avoid judgment and inappropriate
questions.
I once asked a focus group of Russian women (through an
interpreter) how their health care providers might empower them to live
healthier lives. They were befuddled. They had no context for the
question. One of the women said, “How can you even ask us such
questions? We are to listen to the doctor and do what he tells us to do.
We are grateful for whatever advice he gives us.”
Until I understood better that active and conscious disease
prevention is more of an upper middle class Western value, I was not
able to understand their response. If I had it to do over, I would have
elicited input on the question guide from a Russian native prior to the
focus group. Having done that, I imagine I would have either eliminated
the question or changed it to a more basic question like, “Where does
health come from?” or “How do you and your family stay healthy?”
Time boundaries
Many other cultures are less time-bound than
Americans, who highly value time—we don’t like to waste or “kill” time.
Cultures that don’t live by the watch, especially those that value
listening more than speaking, may need more time or flexibility to
accommodate what they have to say or how they want to say it.
Focus groups, the way we Americans run them, are scheduled for a
60 to 90-minute time slot at a public location. That usually works well
for most participants, but not as well for some Latino and African
American sub-groups whose cultural identity is deeply grounded in
family, inclusion, and vibrant dialogue.
To accommodate participants from these high context cultures, I
try to host focus groups in a private home and allow other family
members to be present. When I am not able to do that, I schedule longer,
more flexible groups (to allow for latecomers) in a familiar public
location (church, community center, etc.). I also provide on-site
childcare, a waiting area for spouses and older children, and a full
meal for participants and their families. When I make the contextual
accommodations, I find that participants are able to share more fully.
From the gratitude they express afterward, I sense that they feel
they’ve genuinely been heard.
Directness, Openness, Honesty
When asking interviewees from
other cultures to evaluate services, performance or other individuals,
it is important to listen for subtle hints and signals. Non-Westerners
can feel threatened by frank openness about these issues, particularly
if their responses are negative. To help our interviewees save face, we
must sometimes listen between the words.
One of the first questions I asked a group of Vietnamese focus
group participants was how they would rate their last doctor’s visit.
Two mistakes I made were: 1.) Asking the question so directly; and 2.)
Asking it as the first question, before building their trust.
As it was, every one of the participants claimed their last visit
was excellent or very good. I couldn’t elicit one untoward comment no
matter how I prompted or probed. It’s not to say that the question
should not have been asked, but I could have reframed it in a way that
gave respondents permission to offer less than a complimentary remark.
Something like: “Doctors in the U.S. are always wanting to improve
patient care and sincerely want to hear your feedback. Your comments
will not affect your care or offend the doctor in any way.” I could also
have asked the question closer to the end of the group, at which time I
might have gained the interviewees’ confidence and would also have
generated more knowledge with which to listen between the lines for
hints of dissatisfaction.
Practicality and Efficiency
In general, it’s American to
value efficiency and rationality. But it’s not always the best approach
during cross-cultural interviews. Here, efficiency can ultimately
short-circuit the quality or depth of data.
A few years ago, I conducted a focus group of low-income African
American women for a community needs assessment sponsored by a local
health care organization. I’m white, but since we were all women, and
Americans, and I was on a short timeline and budget it seemed like the
most efficient thing to do. About 15 minutes into the group I started
feeling like the African American women were really connecting with
me—the discussion was flowing and they were really opening up (or so it
seemed). Many of the women even gave me a little hug on their way out. I
was confident it all went well until I ran it past my African American
friend, Cheryl. She shared the following insight:
You can feel like you connected and
people were pleasant and forthcoming but you don’t know if, as an
outsider, there were things that you should’ve heard about and
didn’t—things that are common to this group that you could not know
about, could not know to ask. When you’re an outsider, things will go
over your head and you’ll miss an opportunity to follow up on something.
You can miss something very important [and not know it].
Cheryl really got me thinking about what I might have missed.
Would these women have shared a particular health issue if they though I
might have judged or blamed them for it? Would they be as forthcoming
about health care access issues if they thought, as a white middle class
woman, I couldn’t possibly understand? Or did they just not bother to
speak up because they sensed I wouldn’t understand anyway. I’ll never
know.
As you can see, though I’ve learned a lot about cross-cultural
interviewing, I still have a long way to go. I want to keep learning how
to bridge the context-content gap. I know the quality of the data I
collect will only intensify as the respect and understanding I convey
increases between my culture and theirs.
