Five weeks ago, I detailed my process for writing questions in preparation for a face-to-face interview with a technical communicator. The interview occurred last Friday and my report is now done. However, because of the 2,000-word limit, I have not been able to share what I have learnt about interviewing or any limitations in that particular experience. This is what I will try to do with this blog post.
The interviewee
My interviewee, A., was a perfect interviewee. Every question I asked got a thorough answer. I would say she talked for two to four minutes to answer each question. That is a lot of information. And she did not just repeat herself either, though she did repeat some information in order to back up her answers.
I found this redundancy very helpful while I was summarising the transcript before writing the report. What I usually do when I have to summarise content is that I first summarise and rephrase each section, or question, to highlight the themes that will structure the summary. Having call-backs to content in other sections or questions makes it easier to organise all those rephrased bits thematically. So this is definitely a characteristic of a good interviewee in my book. With a less prolific interviewee, I think my strategy would be to introduce that redundancy myself by asking him/her about links between topics, concepts.
If I identify one risk with a prolific interviewee, it is the possibility of straying off topic. The interviewee goes off on a tangent about something that is irrelevant to your purpose or they dive deep into details that are not in the scope of your assignment. Thankfully, that did not happen here. Not only is A. a professional technical communicator who interacts with SMEs daily, but she is also an alumnus of my university programme who did the same assignment a few years ago. She knew about the topics and constraints.
The subject of this interview experience is a limitation of this assignment in a way. As professional technical communicators, our interviewees may be too perfect. They know the drill because they are struggling every day (or not, I hope) to get the right amount of adequate, clear information. And if they can get that information in a way that facilitates structuring, even better. As A. mentioned, her first interactions with SMEs were difficult. SME interview struggles seem like a rite of passage where every communicator must find the strategies and questions that work best in each case.
The questions
When I prepared my forty questions, I wondered how I would have time to go through all of them. As I said above, A. answered several questions at a time. I think her background played a role there, but I also started the interview by stating all the topics I wanted to cover during the interview, which might have helped her to expand her answers while staying focused. Again, I would need a less cooperating interviewee to test that practice.
A.’s rich answers had a few consequences on the interviewing process. First, I chose to record the interview so that I could focus on her answers and limit note-taking. Not realising how long her first answer was going to be, I made a mental note to ask her about one detail she mentioned and another detail she did not provide regarding her role. Then, another detail. And another one. Of course, I forgot about a couple of those details by the end of her answer. Thankfully, the follow-up questions I forgot were details that only required a one-line email answer, but that was a rookie mistake. I am no longer the fast note-taker of my interpreting days and I got caught up in my interviewee’s speech. Note to self: go back to practising note-taking.
That error and the length of A.’s answers forced me to re-evaluate my strategy. A. answered several questions at the same time with extra info, but she never strayed from the scope, so I decided to prioritise questions that were likely to elicit the same type of answers and to phrase follow-up questions as mirror questions, summarising what A. had just said whenever she took a break and asking about any detail that caught my attention in her answer or any information she had not yet given me. For example, A. mentioned that most of her team members work from a different location or from home and that she sometimes works from home, so I followed up later on with “So, you and your team work from different locations…” A. being the “perfect interviewee”, she answered with the right information before I could even finish my question.
This sounds like an obvious strategy, but I was extremely self-aware at the time that I was listening to A. while trying to determine from her answer what would be the best follow-up question to elicit the maximum amount of relevant info and rephrasing that question in a conversational style. The fact that A. and I have very similar academic and professional backgrounds helped as we immediately established a good rapport. As a result, A. adopted a conversational style where I was able to bounce off phrases like “as you know”, “you know how it is”.
Though it is very unlikely that such a situation will occur often in future interviews, I expect it will be worthwhile looking for similar opportunities to break the ice, like looking for common interests. If that is not an option, I guess that the most basic ice-breaker would be to show that I have researched the topic and that, at least, I understand the basics.
Conclusion
Interviewing a professional technical communicator may not be a perfect simulation for an SME interview, because the professional communicator has internalised good interviewing practices. However, the combination of preparing detailed questions and a prolific interviewee forced me to adapt my questions, my attitude and my interviewing style during the interview. It also helped to consider how I could adapt my strategies for different types of interviewees.