 So, finally, we are ready to interview our participants. We have prepared our guide to help us steer the conversation, but the interview itself tends to be a lot less predictable. It is after all a conversation between two persons and not simply a list of questions that we ask one after the other. Both participants and researchers take turns listening and responding to each other. Words, silences, gestures, and non-verbal expressions are used by both in expressing themselves and in responding to the other. And sometimes, not uncommonly, interviews include difficult interactions and conflicts too. Being aware of some basic dos and don'ts can help us navigate this terrain. First and foremost, we must respect the time given to us for the interview and not exceed it. We should try to keep the conversation fluid. Avoid abrupt beginnings and endings and sudden jumps between topics. We should make written notes or jottings as we converse. But we should not be so engrossed in not taking that the participant feels they are speaking to a recorder. And we should ensure the participants' comfort at all times, starting with their agreement to being recorded. In this section and the next, we will discuss some practical aspects of the interview. This includes how to begin the interview, how slow or fast to move the conversation, the role of silences and non-verbal expressions in our interview, how to navigate difficult or delicate topics, how to respond to participants, how to avoid digressions while still allowing for new topics to be introduced, how to transition from one topic to another, and finally, how to close the interview. We will discuss some of these in this section and the rest in the next one. As we begin, we may feel a bit awkward around each other. Being the researcher, the onus is ours to put our participant at ease. We need not rush into the interview questions, but can start with some general observations or questions that create an environment of comfort. We can make small talk like talk about the weather or picking up topics that may or may not be related to the interview. Like pointing at some artifacts in their house, complementing them on it, asking them if they made it themselves. At this point, we can introduce the participant to our research and to the interview process. And we can carry out procedures such as getting consent for interviewing and recording. Here we should again consider the practical concerns of interviewing and recording. Is the environment suitable for audio and video recordings? Is the participant comfortable with being recorded? Do we need to protect their identity and anonymize them? If the participant seems reluctant or uncomfortable with being recorded, we can just stick to making written notes. The small talk, procedure and explanations flow into the opening parts of our interview where we try to learn about the trajectory of our participant's lives. And we find ourselves settling into this dance that is the interview. As with any dance, there needs to be a rhythm to our movements. The idea is to create a conversation where both researcher and participant have equal control over the content and flow. As the researcher, we try to understand the pace of conversation which is comfortable for the participant and then try to match it. And listening is a key part of this. Some participants expect a Q&A kind of session where one question rapidly follows another. In an ethnographic interview, we try to develop an introspective discussion. And so we try to find a pace which allows reflection and also keeps the conversation going. As we have emphasized earlier, a careful balance of speaking and listening is required to do this. Some researchers suggest that by adopting a slower pace for the interview, we can encourage the participant to take greater control of the conversation. In a slower conversation, they may tend to speak more with less nudging from our end. A slower pace interview creates room for greater reflection and introspection on both sides. We can decrease the pace of the interview by using probes and follow-up questions, spending more time and thought on a single topic. Short pauses and silences, gestures such as a nod, or sounds such as hmm, can have a similar effect. Responses such as these encourage the participant to speak more on a topic, to expand upon their thoughts. In the space between the two topics or two questions, the participant can reflect some more remember related incidents or connect topics. Let's pause here for a moment and revisit a part of our discussion. We have some questions for you here. The first one is why are slow pace interviews preferable in ethnographic research? Note down at least three reasons. And the second, how do you achieve the desired pace in an interview? You may write down single sentence answers for these questions. The answers to these questions are present in the discussion we have had so far. The pace of the interview is decided by the participant and the interviewer, but a slow-paced interview is preferable. This is because a slower pace allows for greater reflection and introspection. And how can we slow down an interview? Here are some of the ways that we have discussed. Among these, silence and non-verbal expressions play a prominent role. In fact, throughout this module, we have been talking about the importance of silence and non-verbal expressions in an interview. Silence on the part of the participant can be as expressive and evocative as speech. It may indicate something that is implied but not spoken about explicitly. It can express powerful emotions and memories. Facial expressions and body gestures often indicate emotions and thoughts that the participant associates with the topic of discussion. Recall the experience of Roger Gashey as he listened to the old farm worker describing her work and what he learned from her silences and gestures. Non-verbal expressions also denote cultural norms. The same expression can mean different things to different communities. For instance, in some cultures, not looking into the other's eyes as we speak is a way of showing respect. In others, it may imply disinterest or boredom or worst-still arrogance. The idea is to be able to differentiate between the wink and the twitch and to understand the meaning of each wink. And more, we pay attention to subtle changes of tone and breathing patterns. For instance, when someone is nervous, their speed of breathing tends to increase and the pitch of their voice rises. The same may happen when someone feels excited. We need to observe all such subtle expressions during the interview. We also need to include them in our notes, either by drawing or writing or recording in any acceptable form. In all cultures and communities, there are topics that are not spoken about publicly or explicitly. People use euphisms, metaphors or particular phrases to refer to these. Often the use of tangential references or metaphors indicates that the subject is taboo or difficult to speak about. For example, in many cultures, segregation on the basis of caste, race or gender is not spoken about explicitly. I found such an incident in my field notes from my work with the coward storytellers. I was travelling with my primary participant, Koja Ram, a coward storyteller. And we were visiting the homes of his patrons in different villages. He would visit each of their houses and perform his coward recitations. Often the patrons would invite us to eat with them after the recitation. On one such occasion, Koja Ram's patron Askaran Singh invited us to stay on for lunch. Askaran Singh offered us tea and lunch. He showed us the different bowls he had for different communities to eat from. We sat in a round hut. Koja Ram did the recitation. Askaran Singh called his family members and others who had attended the recital to also sit around. One person was from the Raikajad, a community of camel herders. And he was made to sit outside. Even the food was served to him in a different bowl. When we invited him in, Askaran Singh removed the duri and so he had to sit on the bare floor. It was uncomfortable for me to be an observer and participant to this incident. However, I was a guest in Askaran Singh's house and an outsider to their community. It would have been presumptuous and judgmental on my part to question these practices. Moreover, it would have embarrassed each of them and perhaps most of all Koja Ram who had brought me there. Later, after we had left Askaran Singh's house, I asked Koja Ram about this incident. He explained it by simply saying, Oh, because he is a Raikha. Thus, without speaking of caste segregation or its rules, he explained the social structure underlying the incident. It was up to me to understand the depth of information behind his brief sentence. Often subjects such as discrimination or certain beliefs and practices evoke judgment from outsiders. For this reason, communities prefer to simply not discuss them. In situations such as these, we have to build our knowledge from sources other than from our participants. We do this by reviewing literature or by asking other participants who are more comfortable explaining such matters to us. It helps to ask these uncomfortable questions a little later after the incident has passed and when there is greater trust between our participants and us, they are more likely to share at that point. Sometimes it helps to discuss a difficult subject indirectly by talking about incidents, stories, objects and spaces that are associated with that subject. For instance, asking Rani Ben about the loss of her home could have been a very difficult conversation. Instead, we talked about the embroidered narratives she had made about the migration and the earthquake. This made it possible and relatively easier for her to speak about the loss. In describing the embroidered narratives, she was able to recount anecdotes and feelings related to that loss. In discussing difficult topics, we should be careful and conscious in our approach. We should frame our questions with utmost care to ensure that our interest in the subject is not perceived as judgmental and that in bringing up such a topic, we are not being offensive or triggering emotional pain. Throughout the discussion, we need to be keenly aware of any signs of discomfort. On sensing any, we can either pause or change the subject. Whatever the situation, it is important we do not push the participant into a discussion they do not want to have. As they build trust in us, participants are likely to feel increasingly comfortable in having conversations around difficult and delicate subjects. Before we move further on, let us review what we have learned so far. Here are some questions that I would like you to reflect on and answer. A. What can we learn from silences and non-verbal expressions of our participants? B. As researchers, how can we learn about topics that are taboo in a society? Some of you may have gone through our discussions to find the answers, but you may also have thought of answers that we did not mention. Please post your answers in the discussion forum. Remember to include points we have already discussed and be encouraged to add new ones. And then join us in our next section as we discuss more on the practice of interviewing.