Interviewing someone provides a unique outlook, especially when it’s someone the interviewer doesn’t know. My interview was with a student who has studied at a previous university for marine biology. My interview topic was based around the current bachelor’s programs here at Capilano University. This student offered insight that I may not have agreed with but as the interviewer, this was one of the challenges I had to face. Asking follow-up questions proved to be one of the more difficult aspects for me. Keeping the interviewee engaged and the conversation flowing is not easy when there is a specific topic at hand that is being conducted in a structured format.

Many of my initial questions didn’t produce detailed answers. For example, the question “Why did you choose Cap to earn your Bachelor’s Degree?” got the simple answer “I live nearby”. However, the details unfolded as I built upon these questions, asking why she lives around here and for how long she’s lived in North Vancouver for. I wrote down a specific passage from the class text that reminded me to “identify ideas or potentially useful concepts to ask about in subsequent questions” what they call “organized listening” (Van den Hoonard 104). With this in mind, I asked why she switched from her initial discipline (which we discussed before the interview started) to a program at Capilano. She stated that jobs were limited in her field, even having spent time in Hawaii she still came up relatively empty-handed. She explained to me that she was formally in the Liberal Studies program at Cap but is now exploring other fields. I asked her about the class format at Capilano and this is where the conversation was able to branch out into the pros and cons of Capilano. I expressed my opinion that the small class sizes are a key component in quality learning. She agreed with me but said that the value of a credential at Capilano was less than a credential at another university such as UBC, thus, the size of our classes is irrelevant. I disagreed with this answer and retorted. This was a moment where I could tell I would risk turning the interview into a debate. I quickly switched to a new question but remained along the same line of questioning. The conversation had finally picked up the pace and I feared switching topics too abruptly would lead to a halt in momentum.

The central topic in my interview guide was the current degrees offered at Capilano University. The first question I put forward on this subject was whether or not Capilano should develop more bachelor’s degree programs. My interviewee was indifferent to this question but eventually hinted towards Capilano being fine with the programs it has. However, when I asked about the diversity of degrees the student had a strong opinion. She felt Capilano had an interesting array of options for bachelor’s programs, noting the Applied Behaviour Analysis program specializing in Autism as a particularly interesting program. After further discussion, which hovered around the same topic, the interview died down and we finished.

I would not consider my interview a success. I found myself struggling to find questions and ways of pushing the interviewee into a deeper discussion. I felt entirely out of my comfort zone and like I truly had no idea what I was doing. However, this weakness surprised me. I thought I would be much better at this exercise as I have interviewed people for jobs before. In this context, I found it quite challenging though. I believe I wasn’t fully invested in the topic at hand and perhaps I would have been better if I was more passionate about the subject.

Even though I found the interview challenging, I believe I learned quite a bit from it. I learned that some people will prove difficult to interview if the interviewer has opposing viewpoints or doesn’t create the right atmosphere for the interviewee. I also discovered that in order to get the most out of the interviewee the interviewer must have previously engaged with the questions instead of expecting the interviewee to provide all the insight. If I had perhaps run a mock interview of these questions with myself before doing the interview I would have been more successful. Devising questions and expecting the person being interviewed to elaborate extensively on them is foolish.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Van den Hoonaard, Deborah K. Qualitative Research in Action. 2nd ed., Oxford, 2015.