Rehearsal interviews with ARP Fellows
Rehearsal interviews with ARP Fellows
Yesterday I interviewed two of my co-fellows at the Advanced Residency Program: Ania Michas and Hyejung Yum (separately).
The purpose of this was both to try the questionnaire (version 6) and potentially evaluate the answers, as well as to improve my interviewing skills.
I gave them the interview questionnaire 1 and 2 days before the interview (posted Jan 6, 2009) and used the version with notes and follow ups (posted Jan 5, 2009) as planned.
I think that both interviews went pretty well. Interestingly the answers from one interviewee to the other were very different, which somehow reinforces the value of collecting different points of view on the topic and the range of perspectives towards conservation treatments.
The length of each interview was 33 and 34 minutes.
The observations I made in terms of the structure and content of the questionnaire are:
- At the beginning, a deeper conversation about the interviewees previous experience was needed in order to contextualize the next questions/answers and also to gain confidence to speak both from interviewee and interviewer,
- The question of need [how do you determine the need for treatment?] sounded abrupt to begin with, although it is a straight forward question that I would like to ask.
I think I can try it further as it is and where it is, before reconsidering its place in the interview. (Perhaps a easier question to begin with would be #3).
- Considering the experience of my interviewees in terms of conservation treatment of photographs, the questions of type, aim, degree, transformation and external interactions went very well. Although the order in which I asked them varied considerably with the flow of the conversation (very much as expected).
The difficulty with this, was then to cover all the questions I wanted to ask (without forgetting some or not asking some because of the way the conversations evolved).
- The content that can be obtained by this part of the interview depends greatly on the interviewee's experience.
- The questions of the specific treatment topics went very well as well as the follow ups to them.
- I think both my interviewees were pleased to participate and happy to help.
Technical details:
I recorded the interviews using my computer. Both the image and audio were good.
I save the files as .mov and then converted one of them to .mp4 to see the difference.
The file size of the first format was around 160MB each while the second format was 89MB. Reduced size reduces quality significantly, but can be still be acceptable.
[In the original post the video was uploaded to blogger and it was retrievable, it was removed since it was only a rehearsal.]
Yesterday I interviewed two of my co-fellows at the Advanced Residency Program: Ania Michas and Hyejung Yum (separately).
The purpose of this was both to try the questionnaire (version 6) and potentially evaluate the answers, as well as to improve my interviewing skills.
I gave them the interview questionnaire 1 and 2 days before the interview (posted Jan 6, 2009) and used the version with notes and follow ups (posted Jan 5, 2009) as planned.
I think that both interviews went pretty well. Interestingly the answers from one interviewee to the other were very different, which somehow reinforces the value of collecting different points of view on the topic and the range of perspectives towards conservation treatments.
The length of each interview was 33 and 34 minutes.
The observations I made in terms of the structure and content of the questionnaire are:
- At the beginning, a deeper conversation about the interviewees previous experience was needed in order to contextualize the next questions/answers and also to gain confidence to speak both from interviewee and interviewer,
- The question of need [how do you determine the need for treatment?] sounded abrupt to begin with, although it is a straight forward question that I would like to ask.
I think I can try it further as it is and where it is, before reconsidering its place in the interview. (Perhaps a easier question to begin with would be #3).
- Considering the experience of my interviewees in terms of conservation treatment of photographs, the questions of type, aim, degree, transformation and external interactions went very well. Although the order in which I asked them varied considerably with the flow of the conversation (very much as expected).
The difficulty with this, was then to cover all the questions I wanted to ask (without forgetting some or not asking some because of the way the conversations evolved).
- The content that can be obtained by this part of the interview depends greatly on the interviewee's experience.
- The questions of the specific treatment topics went very well as well as the follow ups to them.
- I think both my interviewees were pleased to participate and happy to help.
Technical details:
I recorded the interviews using my computer. Both the image and audio were good.
I save the files as .mov and then converted one of them to .mp4 to see the difference.
The file size of the first format was around 160MB each while the second format was 89MB. Reduced size reduces quality significantly, but can be still be acceptable.
[In the original post the video was uploaded to blogger and it was retrievable, it was removed since it was only a rehearsal.]
