Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
In social sciences research, power dynamics are recognised as hugely influential to the research process and are continuously explored in methodological literature. Especially in qualitative interviews, differences in power can be manifested in interactions between interviewers and interviewees, which will directly affect the successful establishment of a working relationship between both parties, the quality of data and research outcomes (Charmaz, 2014). Qualitative researchers are advised to be conscious of the relative differences in power and constantly reflect on it and its associated impacts throughout the research process (Smith, 2006).
Methodological literature generally assumes that researchers are in a position of power and tend to dominate the process, since most research are inclined to focus on marginal and vulnerable groups as participants, rendering visible their voices (Selwyn, 2013; Råheim et al., 2016). However, the interactive, two-way nature of interviews means that power may reside on either side between interviewers and interviewees, and there will inevitably be instances when power is in the hands of participants (Conti and O’Neil, 2007; Gibson and Hua, 2016). This phenomenon has been characterised as ‘study up’ (Ostrander, 1993: 7), referring to research about people in possession of power, authority and privilege, also known as ‘elites’ (see also Desmond, 2004; Hertz and Imber, 1995). Eliteness may include high social or institutional status, but it can also refer to professional competence and expertise, or the ability to mobilise formal and informal networks that grant access to insider knowledge and influential decision-making processes (Harvey, 2011; Wedel, 2017). The unique difference of interviewing elites from conventional interviews is that the power balance tends to be tilted in favour of elites who have accumulated extensive experiences and hold powerful positions in their fields, while researchers are placed in a relatively weaker position (Smith, 2006).
In addition to the difference in status, power relations will be even more complicated if the interviewers and the interviewees do not share the same first language (L1), and either or both are multilinguals (Cormier, 2018). In this case, foreign language speakers might find themselves naturally placed in a weaker position compared to their counterparts who use L1 (Rolland et al., 2019). Particularly when it is the researchers who have to use a later-learned language (LX) 1 to interview elites, it can exacerbate the pre-existing power imbalance, disempowering the researchers even further (Marschan-Piekkari and Reis, 2004). However, the challenges of interviewing elites in one's LX are scarcely documented in the literature. Given the increasing linguistic diversities in social sciences research and the growing number of international scholars working and researching in LX (Holmes, 2016; King, 2023), this represents a significant gap in the knowledge.
To fill the gap, this article draws on my doctoral experiences interviewing an elite participant in my LX (English) to explore the intersections of power, language and researcher positionality. Through a reflexive analysis of 2 interviews with the elite, I examine how the power relationship between us was co-constructed and transformed by our perceptions of my positionality and our use of language. This paper offers insights into the complexities and tensions arising from interviewing elites in one's LX, particularly in relation to the changing power dynamics, while suggesting a possible means to address the power gap by communicating researcher vulnerabilities with elite participants. The following section will start by exploring existing knowledge about interviewing elites.
Current understandings of interviewing elites
Although elite interviewing represents a growing body of literature in the past few decades, there seems to be a lack of consensus on the definition of ‘elites’. According to Harvey (2010), the elite status can be made up of various elements (e.g., power, hierarchical positions, social capital) that are often incomparable across different contexts. Therefore, instead of agreeing on a universal definition, most studies have provided context-specific definitions with several key characteristics to identify elites. For example, Boucher (2017) suggested two main criteria to distinguish elites: those who are in positions of power, such as corporate CEOs, staff at senior management roles, government executives; and those who have acquired extensive expertise through years of experiences in relevant fields. In a study by Welch et al. (2002: 613) that addressed the methodological challenges of interviewing corporate elites, the definition of elites was expanded to the following: An informant (usually male) who occupies a senior or middle management position; has functional responsibility in an area which enjoys high status in accordance with corporate values; has considerable industry experience and frequently also long tenure with the company; possesses a broad network of personal relationships; and has considerable international exposure.
My research into English language testing for university admissions aims to explore the full spectrum of test-taking experiences from those involved in test development and administration to those taking and interpreting the tests. The research objective necessitates the need to focus on test providers, most of whom are powerful multinational organisations designing and delivering the tests. Therefore, drawing on the review of literature above, elites in this study refer to the people who have worked or are currently working as senior management roles at leading companies and organisations in the language testing industry, and have accumulated substantial insider knowledge about the development and administration of standardised English tests.
In addition to the definition of elites, the methodological challenges associated with interviewing elites seem to be a critical concern in existing literature. Researchers are recurringly faced with obstacles about access to participants, interviewing strategies, participants’ level of openness, etc. (Harvey, 2010; Perera, 2021; Smith, 2006). The following sections will discuss how these issues are particularly difficult to deal with when interviewing elites.
Access
Although access to any fields can be difficult and sometimes problematic in social sciences research, the power gap between researchers and elites often makes it more challenging to access them. One manifestation of power is the barriers built around elites to distance themselves from the general public (Hertz and Imber, 1995). Such barriers can be in the form of layers of administrative or secretarial procedures to go through before reaching elites, which makes the process considerably more time-consuming and costly than approaching non-elites (Littig, 2009). Smith (2006) also indicates that elites tend to be adept at manipulating information, negotiating terms and denying or preventing access from research. An effective strategy to overcome these barriers of access is to use existing networks who might be in connection with elite participants (Walford, 2012). A similar technique proposed by Farquharson (2005) is called the ‘reputational snowball’, where elite participants are identified through peer nomination by powerful people who are in the same network. In other cases, researchers may contact ex-employees who have retired or moved on from senior roles (Lancaster, 2017), request interviews through emails, letters and phone calls (Duke, 2002), approach elites through social media (Straubhaar, 2015), or through networking opportunities at conferences, research seminars and other public events (Stephens, 2007). Since the likelihood of success in gaining access largely depends on circumstances, social networks and serendipity (McDowell, 1998), researchers are encouraged to keep a flexible design, plan ahead for possible failures in accessing certain actors and diversify the sources of data to mitigate the risks (Aydarova, 2019).
Conducting interviews
In addition to access, the impacts of power asymmetry in elite interviewing extend further into the interviewing stage on various aspects. Once the initial access is granted, building rapport and gaining trust from elites become paramount. To do so, Harvey (2010) emphasised the importance of being transparent with participants and using clear language with minimum academic jargon to explain the details of research, so that participants could fully understand the purpose of research and rest assured about the use of their data. Another important matter is doing one's homework before the interviews (Aydarova, 2019; Harvey, 2011). Elites who are in power generally assume that researchers should have read the published information available, and due to their extensive insider knowledge and powerful status, they might challenge the research subject and interview questions (Conti and O’Neil, 2007). In Harvey's (2011) case, the researcher was questioned by interviewees several times that it was as if the researcher's position had been shifted to being an ‘interviewee’. Therefore, it is crucial for researchers to do their homework and tailor the questions to the expertise of elites, while being prepared for potential challenges coming from them.
Furthermore, the power imbalance poses a risk of elites taking over interviews and dictating the process, since most of them are trained as confident public speakers and leading roles in conversations (Empson, 2018; Stephens, 2007). Lancaster (2017) found that participants possessed a long history of working in the field and were accustomed to leading discussions, expressing their opinions and being authoritative. Thus, there were circumstances where participants took over the conversation, assumed what would be of interest to the researcher, and even made suggestions about data interpretation. In such cases, the researcher could be at risks of being patronised, particularly with the presence of relational differences in age, ethnicity, language, gender and social class (Boucher, 2017; Li et al., 2023; Rolland et al., 2019). A similar issue was raised by Li et al. (2023), where one of Li's interviews was turned into a lengthy monologue of the elite, generating data of insufficient value. Although such situations are difficult to anticipate and prepare for, researchers are encouraged to seek the balance between allowing elites to freely express their opinions and avoiding time wasted on off-topic content (Stephens, 2007).
Openness
In some cases, the level of openness from elite participants varies and can hugely influence the quality of data. Some elites might be well practiced in speaking formally on behalf of their organisations, in which case the researchers might gather merely ‘public relations’ speech as data, instead of fruitful personal accounts (Harvey, 2011; Mikecz, 2012). One reason for this is their concern about the confidentiality and anonymity of research participation, since elites are often tightly bounded by institutional policies and confidentiality agreements on what they can and cannot reveal (Welch et al., 2002). Also, the sampling frame of elites is usually highly reduced to several figures of power within an organisation or an industry, making it harder to protect them from being identified by their colleagues or even the public (Walford, 2012). Sometimes their participation in research was also openly discussed at committee meetings or shared with others in the field (Lancaster, 2017). Adhering to confidentiality and anonymity principles in this case is extremely challenging, hence participants tend to engage in self-censoring and provide overly generalised answers.
Various strategies have been proposed to mitigate this risk of getting corporate answers from elites. For example, Lancaster (2017) found it useful to approach previous employees who occupied key roles in power, as they are still well-informed insiders but more likely to express opinions freely without restrictions. Another strategy is to phrase interview questions in personal terms to make elites feel that their personal insights and experiences are of interest, which might flatter them and encourage them to open up (Laurila, 1997; Thomas, 1993). Welch et al. (2002) also emphasised the importance of adopting a suitable researcher positionality. What they found useful is to present oneself as an ‘informed outsider’—someone who is knowledgeable yet is willing to listen and maintain neutrality as an outsider. By stressing academic neutrality and showing curiosity, the researcher is more likely to be perceived as non-threatening. Others recommended not to shy away from asking tough questions or using a more confrontational style of interviewing to challenge evasive answers (Mickelson, 1994; Ostrander, 1993). However, researchers are cautioned against pushing too hard to make elites feel uncomfortable or put them in a vulnerable state, but rather allow them to share their experiences as they are or wish to be told (McClure and McNaughtan, 2021).
As presented above, the unique characteristics of interviewing elites and the associated power asymmetry could lead to distinct challenges faced by qualitative researchers. However, the fluid, dynamic nature of power relations means that they are often constructed and affected by various factors. In addition to the eliteness of participants, a difference in language is another important contributor to the dynamic power relations between researchers and participants. The following section will explore current research on how language can influence the research process and shape power relationships and researcher positionality.
The role of language in shaping power and positionality
The role of language in conducting research has attracted heightened attention due to the increase in linguistic diversities in academia. In multilingual research, careful consideration is required regarding the choice of language throughout the research process: from the initial conceptualisation and planning stage, to deciding what language(s) to be employed in reviewing literature, working with participants, collecting and analysing data, and finally presenting findings to all stakeholders (Holmes, 2016). Whether or not researchers share the same language with participants can transform language into a form of power that heavily influences the collection of data (Cormier, 2018). Even though multilingual research has gained greater momentum in social sciences, the role of language and its impacts on power dynamics and researcher positionalities remain a minority topic in methodological literature, particularly within the context of elite interviewing. This paper thus addresses this scarcity by providing a reflexive account into my experiences interviewing an elite in English—my LX—and by examining the role of language in shaping and re-shaping the power dynamics.
As interest in multilingual research grows in academia, discussions about the impacts of language on researcher positionality and power dynamics have intensified. According to Holmes et al. (2015), multilingual research can take various forms, and the role of language in every scenario is distinct. In some cases, researchers can be linguistic insiders who share the same language(s) and/or lived experiences with participants. Existing literature generally considers it as an advantage for various reasons, including easier access to the field and local contacts (Hult, 2013), easier to obtain informed consent (Kim, 2012), and effective rapport building (Perryman, 2011). Therefore, having shared language(s) could help bridge the gap in power between researchers and the researched, establish a more intimate understanding of participants’ lived experiences and generate richer data (Aiello and Nero, 2019).
Despite this, the insider-outsider dichtomy is criticised for overlooking the complexity of positionality and researcher identity, which are shaped by various factors, including race, ethnicity, gender, social status, etc (e.g., Hult, 2013; McNess et al., 2015). From this perspective, researchers can have multiple identities, and the insider-outsider status is not static but rather fluid and dynamic (Cormier, 2018). Sharing the same language(s) does not automatically grant researchers an insider status and its associated benefits. An example can be found in Aiello and Nero (2019), where they reflected on scenarios that triggered tensions around language, power and identity in two different contexts. In both cases, language was the centre of concern, embedded in researchers’ identities but challenged by participants during conversations about culture, policy development and beliefs. By engaging in a reflexive account, they demonstrated the complexities of defining insider-outsider status, which transcends nationality, language and ethnicity to encompass ‘researcher roles, relative levels of familiarity with the evolution of issues in the educational context, and the ideologies, attitudes and practices within the larger culture in which the research takes place’ (Aiello and Nero, 2019: 261). It highlights the need to re-examine the role of language across various contexts and be conscious of how linguistic positionalities can influence researcher-participant relationships and power dynamics.
On the other hand, there are often circumstances where researchers and participants do not share the same L1, and the involvement of interpreters and translators might be necessary (e.g., Backhaus, 2022; Bochmann, 2022; Ganassin and Holmes, 2013). Power, in this case, circulates among researchers, participants and translators/interpreters, resulting in greater complexities and ambiguities regarding the negotiation of power, the production of content and ethical considerations (Berman and Tyyskä, 2011; Edwards, 1998; Temple et al., 2006). At other times, researchers or participants might be multilingual themselves and able to communicate in a foreign language (e.g., Chen, 2011; Rolland, 2023; Svensson, 2024). The choice of language becomes paramount in this case, as it can strongly influence how multilinguals express themselves, recall experiences and construct personal identies (De Fina, 2016; Dewaele, 2010; Pavlenko, 2007). Furthermore, one's use of language is ‘bounded by socio-historical norms, language ideologies and interactional contexts’ (Rolland et al., 2023: 647), which further complicates the meaning conveyed in different languages. Particularly in an interview setting, a participant's responses to the same question may vary significantly depending on whether they use their first or second language (Cortazzi et al., 2011). Participants’ power and agency could be reduced if they are not offered a choice to use or not use a certain language (Prior, 2015). Therefore, scholars have called for more careful consideration on the choice of language to ensure research trustworthiness and maintain the power equilibrium (Ganassin and Holmes, 2020; Rolland, 2023).
While researchers often focus extensively on the potential vulnerabilities of multilingual participants in relation to the interview language, there is little consideration of a possible reversed situation, where a researcher has to work in LX to interview participants born speaking that language. Whether a researcher feels confident researching in LX is closely related to one's linguistic positionality and the power relationship (King, 2023). Especially when interviewing elites, the linguistic insecurity of researchers could further excerbate the power asymmetry between them and elites. However, while researchers of elite interviews generally acknowledge the significance of language (e.g., Marschan-Piekkari and Reis, 2004; Welch et al., 2002), there has been little exploration of how it can transform the power dynamics during interviews. This paper is an attempt to bridge this gap in the knowledge by reflexively exploring my own experiences interviewing an elite in LX, highlighting the rising tensions and intersections between power, language and perceived researcher positionality. The following section will provide an overview of the research context.
Study background
This paper draws on interview data from my ongoing doctoral research started in October 2022. The project aims to explore the test-taking experiences of standardised English tests for all concerned, from those taking the tests to those interpreting and administering the tests, including test-takers, staff at higher education institutions (e.g., lecturers/academic tutors, admissions officers), staff from testing organisations and providers. The overarching research question is ‘how is the experience of standardised English tests for university admissions co-constructed by the multiple actors involved?’. Adopting a case study approach, a research-intensive, prestige UK university has been chosen as the case site, and a recognised English test accepted by the university has been chosen as one of the target tests to elicit test-taking experiences. To this date, participants include test-takers who have received an offer at this university, current and previous employees from testing organisations, and university recruitment and admissions staff. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted to explore their experiences of tests and their role/involvement in the process. Relevant documents and materials have been collected for further analysis (e.g., test-takers’ preparation notes, test-takers’ writing samples, assessment guidelines/handbooks). The project is ongoing and currently in the phase of initial data analysis using open coding.
Elite participants in my study have worked for testing organisations as team leaders and managers for academic issues. All of them have accumulated over 10 years of experience teaching and assessing English across various regions. They were recruited through a combination of purposive and snowball sampling, with some being identified initially through staff profiles on organisation websites, then contacted via work emails. The initial group was then invited to nominate other potential informants, some of whom I was able to approach via emails. A brief online meeting was arranged with most of them to introduce the project and research objectives, explain the process of data collection, reassure them of the confidentiality and anonymity rules, and answer any questions they may have.
Interviews with elite participants focused on their daily experiences of work in the assessment industry, their roles in the delivery and development of tests, and their interactions with internal and external stakeholders. All interviews were conducted online and screen-recorded via Microsoft Teams. Informed by and reflecting on the challenge of anonymisation when interviewing elites, the name of test, testing organisations and their (previous) job titles are not given in this paper, and pseudonyms are used throughout. An informal research journal was kept to record my thoughts and reflections throughout the research journey, enabling me to reflect on the challenges and refine my research practice in subsequent interviews.
Reflection on my researcher positionality
As suggested by Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative researchers should identify and actively reflect on their subjective values and potential biases coming from their previous background to shape their research approach. This could include considerations such as gender, race, culture, language and socioeconomic status. Self-reflection has been a major theme in my doctoral journey, through which I documented and recognised my strengths and weaknesses as a researcher. This has enabled me to improve my research approach and make necessary refinements. The following section describes my personal experiences and analyses my positionality from the perspectives of me and elite participants.
I am a female, novice researcher in my late twenties, born and raised in a small city of China. I had the privilege of attending an international college in China and later pursuing tertiary education in Canada. Since then, English has become a necessary skill and an important form of social capital for me, and the idea that proficiency in English determines future success has been internalised and continues to influence my thinking, shaping my identity and positionality as an LX researcher. Even though I have lived in English-speaking countries for more than 6 years and can speak English fluently, I still experience anxiety especially when using English to communicate with so-called ‘native speakers’ (i.e., people for whom English is their L1), as I am afraid of making mistakes and looking stupid. This fear of failure, according to Salehi and Marefat (2014), is a key factor that leads to unsatisfactory language performance of foreign language speakers, particularly in verbal communication. Upon reflection, I found that language anxiety influenced my research approach in many respects, such as the ways I posed questions and my hesitation to disclose struggles of understanding, both of which undermined my ability to manage interviews.
In addition to feeling like a linguistic outsider, my self-perception as a young researcher with limited experience and knowledge of English testing was another trigger of my anxiety and sense of powerlessness when interviewing elites. My academic trajectory has dominated my life so far, and I have little practical experience of the assessment industry other than being a previous test-taker myself. As a result, I perceived myself to be less powerful than my elite participants, many of whom were far more senior than me in age, work experience, expertise, and social status. This perceived power imbalance was manifested in interviews, where I allowed conversations to be taken over or led off-topic by participants, or failed to follow up on things I did not understand. My experience resonates with existing literature that highlights the risk of interviews being dominated by elite participants (e.g., Stephens, 2007; Boucher, 2017).
On the other hand, my elite participants seemed to regard me more as an insider for several reasons. First of all, having been through these tests myself as an international student, I am familiar with the basics of tests (e.g., test content, delivery, and construction). Therefore, my past experiences enabled me to develop an in-depth, contextualised understanding of tests, which enhanced the efficiency of communication with participants (Kim, 2012). Additionally, my role as a PhD researcher also seemed to contribute to my ‘insiderness’, as a few participants have been novice researchers themselves, while others seemed to be highly interested in participation of research to promote their test. In this case, my dual identity as both a previous test-taker and a novice researcher has perhaps helped me gain access to elites more easily, as I may be perceived as a ‘perfectly harmless’ person who is young, informed, interested in their work but not necessarily threatening (Gewirtz and Ozga, 2013: 193).
Overall, there seems to be a difference between how I perceived my positionality and how my elite participants perceived it. The divergent perceptions of my positionality on the insider-outsider continuum have influenced my interactions with elites and created unique challenges associated with power asymmetry and language during the interviews. In the following sections, I reflect on the challenges I faced as an LX researcher interviewing an elite, particularly those intertwined with language, power dynamics, and perceived researcher positionality.
Initial access
As discussed previously, obtaining access is a well-recognised issue in elite interviewing. Power of elites at this stage is usually manifested in forms of restricting access via various gatekeepers and layers of administrative procedures (Littig, 2009), which in my case appeared to be the limited transparency and accessibility of information about elites. On the websites of testing organisations, there was little information available about members of test management teams and their roles in the testing process. Even when there was information online about staff members, their work responsibilities were vaguely described and hard to interpret based on my limited understanding of the organisational structures. Furthermore, the high-stakes, large-scale nature of tests means that test development and delivery processes are highly complicated and labour-intensive, resulting in a sophisticated organisational structure with regional offices across the globe. Especially when a test is jointly managed by several organisations and companies, it may be even harder to identify potential informants who might be relevant to the study with a regional focus of mainland China. Testing organisations exercised their power to make these information largely inaccessible and invisible to the public, adding to the existing barriers of accessing elites. Eventually, I tried to identify contacts from professional networks such as conference mailing lists and online communities of language assessments, through which Mike was discovered as a contact. He has previously worked in China for decades as an expert of English teaching and assessments, having occupied managerial roles at a testing organisation. I sent him an email explaining the project and citing the professional network as a mutual connection, and he sent a positive reply immediately. This seemed to echo previous research which suggested a higher chance of success if researchers share common links with elites (Duke, 2002).
In addition to gatekeeping, power was also exercised by elites and organisations through the negotiation of terms of the interviews. In Mike's first reply to my invitation email, he directly asked me to propose a time for interview and kindly nominated another colleague whom he thought might be useful to my project. At that point, I was hugely surprised by his cooperativeness. Being afraid of losing him as a participant, I decided to move things forward as quickly as possible. Instead of arranging an informal meeting to explain further details of the study, I replied with a suggested time for interview with attachments of the participant information sheet and consent form for him to read on his own. This move, however, turned out to be particularly risky, as the chance to provide a clear explanation of the study and build rapport was compromised. Unsurprisingly, he replied by asking for clarifications regarding the collection of certain paperwork specified in the information sheet, as he was concerned about breaching the confidentiality agreement of the organisation—a common concern shared by elites (e.g., Harvey, 2011; Mikecz, 2012). I had to address his concern by reassuring him of my duty of care for participants, including respecting their choices to share or not share certain documents. This example demonstrated how elites can act as agents of power, bounded in rules and principles of the organisations which control the information.
The initial access experience marked the formation of a perceived asymmetrical power relation between me, elite participants and the organisations behind them. Power is exercised by organisations to restrict access of information from the public, and passed onto individuals within organisations to self-regulate information shared with outsiders. As a student researcher, I felt like I was placed in a passive, vulnerable position where I had very little choice but to wait for their ‘approval’ to move things forward. This perceived power imbalance began to emerge, leading to unfolding power dynamics that intersected with language and researcher positionality, ultimately influencing data collection.
First interview: the ‘loss’ of power
Our first interview was a challenging experience for me. The interview was conducted online, as requested by Mike due to his working style, and English was used as the interview language due to our cultural and linguistic backgrounds. I am fluent in both Chinese (my L1) and English (my LX), while English is Mike's L1. Although he has worked in China for decades, he is not a fluent user of Chinese, but could occasionally switch to Chinese to name the institutions related to his previous work. Therefore, English seemed to be the most appropriate interview language. However, during the interview, I felt in various instances that I lost control of as an interviewer due to a combination of reasons, including the perceived power asymmetry, language, and the divergent perceptions of researcher positionality between me and Mike. These factors were intertwined together to gradually shift the interview in an unexpected direction.
Domination
A key challenge with interviewing elites is that elites can sometimes dominate the conversation, diverting the researcher from primary topics of interest (Lancaster, 2017; Stephens, 2007). My interview experience with Mike reflects this phenomenon. Soon after our first interview started, I asked Mike about his previous work experiences and his motivation to work in the assessment industry, which were lead-in questions intended to put participants at ease and build rapport with them (Rolland et al., 2019). However, when answering these questions, Mike was clearly very passionate about sharing with me his decades-long history of teaching and assessing in China, and we ended up spending the first 15 minutes delving into his work history. During that time, I was gradually led astray by Mike, and the focus of conversation moved away from my lead-in questions to his overview of the English teaching market in China decades ago. Excerpt 1 shows an example where the transition of topics happened:
So when I joined the XXX (the name of the test organisation) full time, it was as a manager, so that was it. It was all about career really, you know. And legitimacy (smiled). To become more legitimate as a teacher, because language teachers in China are not good. (Smiled) Yeah, yeah. In general, they're not very good. They're backpackers, and they're not very professional. And I, and I started with a kind of a general primary school teacher. When that was my initial training and I knew that everyone that I met who was a teacher in China was generally very poor, you know. You mean foreign teachers? Foreign teachers. No, the Chinese teachers are great! You know, the standards of education were…they were very committed. They would, they just work to death, you know. (Interviewer: right.) And their methodology and their approach were based on the context of what they taught and how they taught, and that the kind of criteria of what they were taught. So, you know, it was teaching to the test. So they had literally no idea of how to use task-based learning approaches because it wasn't the right context for it.
Here Mike started by citing career progression as the biggest motivation for him to go into the assessment field, and then linked it to the quality of English teachers in China at the time. Although I believe it was unintentional, he shifted the topic from his work in assessment to commenting on the quality of foreign teachers and Chinese teachers. I, on the other hand, went along with it for several reasons. Firstly, my hesitation to interrupt him was partly due to a desire to build rapport, or even to please the elite. I was afraid of being interpreted as impolite or disrespectful, which might have risked losing him as a participant. My hesitation was also rooted in the perceived power imbalance, which reduced my confidence and led me to lose control of the interview. The online, video-conferencing interview setting may have further undermined my ability to engage effectively in the conversation because of the limited non-verbal cues (e.g., body language, subtle facial expressions) and latency in interaction (Seuren et al., 2021; Verjee and Sticher, 2024). Also, due to the semi-structured nature of this interview, I was hoping that by providing him with the flexibility to elaborate, it might eventually lead to unexpected but meaningful themes. As shown in Excerpt 1, I engaged in active listening and occasionally asked for clarifications when we were off topic, hoping it would become useful in the analysis stage. Internally, however, anxiety began to build up as I became increasingly aware that the interview might not be going in the right direction. Eventually, I had to guide us back on track by explicitly redirecting the conversation (e.g., using phrases like ‘shall we talk about your experience as…’), or by picking up on points mentioned by Mike that related to my questions and steering the discussion in that direction.
Lengthy monologues and dominative conversational style are identified as a linguistic indicator of power (Boucher, 2017). In contrast to turn-taking in conversations, lengthy monologues are a way for speakers to perpetuate their status, while limiting the right of the listener to contribute to conversations, thus demolishing the power equilibrium (Coates, 2013). Although a difference between the amount of linguistic input from researchers and the researched is often expected in interviews, when interviewing elites, this can pose extra challenges to the researcher who might have been naturally placed on the weaker side of power. This example provides a snapshot of the elite participant's power acquisition through the domination of conversation and its associated impacts, such as the interviewer's increased anxiety and the reduced amount of meaningful research output. Meanwhile, it highlights the fact that power negotiation is often multi-layered and highly complicated, shaped by both sides’ spontaneous behaviours during the interview, their previous experiences and the nature of interviews.
Language
In addition to Mike's dominating conversation style, language—manifested in his use of unfamiliar language and my language anxiety—gradually emerged as another important factor that affected the power dynamics. First of all, there were many times when certain words, phrases and jargon Mike used were unfamiliar to me. Some examples include, but are not limited to:
A possible explanation for his use of language could relate to Mike's perception of my positionality, where I may have been positioned as an insider both culturally and linguistically. Culturally, I am a member of the wider group of international students from China, whom he used to work with for years. Therefore, to him, I am a cultural insider with the contextualised knowledge of English teaching and assessments in China. Evidence of my perceived insider status can be found in instances where he occasionally code-switched from English to Chinese, such as mentioning the names of institutions/schools he used to work for and referring to his previous job titles in Chinese. Linguistically, he may have perceived me as a fluent speaker of English, as shown by my oral, written skills and my ability to do research in English. As a result, he might have unconsciously overlooked my identity as an LX speaker of English and spoken to me as if he were speaking to other ‘native speakers’. Although it could be unintentional, language seemed to become a tool for him to assert power, exacerbating the power imbalance and my language anxiety, which affected my approach of interviewing.
In addition to his use of language, my language anxiety, which is rooted in my positionality as a linguistic outsider, has played a key role in shaping the interviews. Before the interview even started, I was slightly anxious about using my LX to interview an elite who was born speaking English. As presented above, Mike's dominating conversation style and use of unfamiliar language resulted in further distortion of power relations and my increased anxiety, which, I feel, undermined my oral speaking ability in professional settings, particularly the ways I posed questions. Excerpt 2 provides a few examples of my attempts to pose questions while in a state of anxiety:
Right. So can I ask what was the certification process like? Was that like you have to do certain training or was it like…? Right, so who are your like students at that time? Like, who are the main group of…? Right. So they, they felt like they're being judged constantly, is that…? Yeah, but it sounds like, if I were to imagine the work of a XXX (Mike's previous job title), I would probably imagine it to be like multitasking and like overseeing a lot of things at the same time. And that can be quite…Was that true for…?
OK. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this. I realise it's probably, like come to the end of this session. (Mike: alright). So, can we like, because I realise we haven't really talked about the experiences of test development that much yet, we kind of focused on the other part. So I wonder if we could have probably another interview at some point like when you are available. What kind of aspects of test development do you need to discuss really? I was…I was wanting to discuss that with you, as I know it might get more confidential regarding the development stage, so I don't…I don’t know… That's OK, I can talk generally about it, you know. Don't worry about it. We'll, we'll see how far I can go. But if I, I won't tell you things that, you know, I think are too near the knuckle, you know. (laughed)
In Excerpt 3, the power dynamics between Mike and I were acted out in our use of language. When approaching the end of our first interview, I wanted to request another interview with him. I used phrases and words like ‘I wonder if we could…’, ‘probably’, and ‘when you are available’ to hedge the request and make myself sound less assertive. While hedging is often used as a politeness strategy, it can be also seen as an indicator of powerlessness in speech (Boucher, 2017). In my case, the use of hedging shows my lack of confidence and the desire to please the elite as a result of the power imbalance. Mike, on the other hand, questioned the topic and requested clarifications before giving a definitive answer to my request, which again might be related to his concerns over violating the confidentiality agreements. His question triggered my anxiety even further, as indicated in my response that I was clearly not prepared for this question. I stumbled over my words and gave a very tentative answer (i.e., ‘I don’t know…’) —another sign of powerless speech which shows the hesitancy of the speaker (Boucher, 2017). Through this tentative reply, I essentially handed him over the control of topic to decide what we could/could not discuss, further perpetuating the power asymmetry.
The abovementioned examples make explicit the power interplay between me and Mike in relation to our use of language. Power was negotiated and transferred through our words, utterances, and communicative strategies, while language helped reinforce the existing power asymmetry and triggered a ‘chain reaction’: the further distorted power imbalance through his use of unfamiliar language led to my increased anxiety as an LX researcher, which was then reflected in my own language—more hedging, pauses, incomplete sentences and so on. Thus, language became not only a key component in shaping power relations and my positionality, but also a result of them.
Second interview: regaining power
Although challenges associated with power asymmetry in elite interviewing are widely recognised, it is not impossible to mitigate the power gap and restore balance. As mentioned previously, various strategies have been suggested to cope with these challenges, such as doing careful research about elites’ background (Aydarova, 2019), rephrasing questions to elicit more details (Laurila, 1997), or taking up the courage to be confrontational and challenge their ‘corporate’ answers (Ostrander, 1993).
In my case, since language seemed to be a key factor in shaping power dynamics, my supervisor encouraged me to be upfront about my struggle with language as a potential means to even out the power imbalance. Hence, before the start of my second interview with Mike, I revealed to him that I did not fully understand him last time and might need to interrupt and ask for clarifications of certain language that might not be comprehensible to me. Surprisingly, he seemed very sorry and apologised immediately for it, explaining that he sometimes has the habit of ‘rambling’. Later in the interview, although there were still unfamiliar phrases used occasionally, he became much more careful and self-aware of his language use and constantly checked my understanding. Examples of meaning negotiation between us are showed in Excerpts 4 and 5:
You know, because XXX (Mike's previous job) is a kind of cul-de-sac. A profession. Sorry a coded sack…? I’m using words again, sorry (smiled). So cul-de-sac it's a metaphor (using hands to show the circular shape of a cul-de-sac), you know, like a blocked road, that road that goes around. It's a career cul-de-sac. You are not going anywhere, you are just going around the circles. And that's fine, but there's no sort of like transferable skills with it. Do you know what I mean? Yeah yeah What happens if, if you if you do tonnes and tonnes of these XXX (Mike's previous job task) is that you start having Halo effects and marking to the central tendency marking. Do you know what that means? Sorry, can you explain that? Central tendency. Do you know what Halo Effect is? Yes I do, yeah. OK, alright. Another thing that XXX (Mike's previous job) who do it for quite a long time, if they got large volumes, is a central tendency rating and that's so that they don't become an outlier. Central tendency is just going for the middle bands.
Informed by my interviews with Mike, I began incorporating a brief explanation of my struggles with language at the start of subsequent interviews with other elites whom I interviewed in English, with the intention to build confidence and a more balanced power relationship. All participants responded positively, and my perceived anxiety seemed to ease a bit in later interviews. This might be because of the self-disclosure, the accumulation of experiences interviewing elites, and the different personalities and conversational styles of participants. Although challenges still existed in later interviews, such as elites providing ‘public relations’ responses or self-censoring information, I felt more comfortable with asking for clarifications and posing challenging questions.
My interview experiences with Mike and other elites provided a possibility for researchers to regain power by acknowledging researchers’ vulnerabilities and staying open about researchers’ needs. By directly expressing my struggles as an LX researcher, the power dynamics were effectively reshaped in two ways. On one hand, the self-disclosure of my struggles with language reduced my anxiety and re-empowered me with the right to question and interrupt, without worrying about being misinterpreted as disrespectful, impolite or incompetent, which helped me re-establish confidence and position myself equally with the elite. On the other hand, it made the elite participant reflect on his use of language as a way of exercising power and made him aware of the need to increase the clarity of his speech. Thus, a space for the re-negotiation of power was actively created, enabling us both to address the barriers of comprehension and make mutual efforts to restore the power equilibrium.
Discussion and conclusion
This paper illustrates how elite interviewing is an intricate, nuanced process shaped by the interconnections between power, language, and researcher positionality. Through the reflexive analysis of 2 interviews with one elite participant, it demonstrates how perceived differences in these areas are intertwined throughout the interviews to co-construct the interactions between researchers and elites. It also illustrates the importance of reflexivity and the explicit acknowledgement of researcher's vulnerabilities as useful strategies to address the challenges of researching elites as an LX researcher.
My experiences of interviewing elites foreground the unique role of language in shaping power relations and the perceived researcher positionality. In addition to being a communicative tool, language is intricately linked to one's identity and socio-cultural background, and can sometimes function as a tool of exercising power, thus influencing power dynamics and the positioning of researchers (Cormier, 2018). In my interviews with Mike, my linguistic identity as an LX researcher and his use of unfamiliar language inevitably contributed to my lack of confidence and sense of powerlessness, which then negatively impacted my own language use and oral ability to interview in LX. It is also crucial to recognise that, other than language, power relations are shaped by a complex web of intersectional positions of researchers and participants (Vähäsantanen and Saarinen, 2012). My lack of confidence may have partially come from the awareness that I was a young, female student researcher interviewing a male, elite participant who was much more senior than me in age and experience, as echoed by previous research (e.g., Prior and Peled, 2021). Although it would not be possible to explore all intersecting identities in depth, this reflexive article highlights the key role of language in shaping how power is experienced, enacted and negotiated in elite interviews.
Despite the fact that a natural gap in power exists when interviewing elites, what can an LX researcher do to restore the power equilibrium? My experience shows that it can be helpful to be upfront with elites and acknowledge struggles with language, in order to gain mutual respect and connect with participants on a human level (Lounasmeri, 2020). Researchers might need to be careful as some elites might interpret such self-disclosures as a sign of weakness and further exploit the power asymmetry (see Welch et al., 2002). However, in cases similar to mine where elites are kind and patient, communicating vulnerabilities has the potential to ‘transform the self and others’ (Chang, 2016: 52), to create a space of care between interviewers and interviewees, to allow vulnerabilities to be seen and heard, thus encouraging mutual effort from both sides to bridge the gap in power.
In conclusion, this paper contributes to the growing body of work on elite interviewing, with a particular focus on the role of language in shaping the interview experience. Through reflecting on my interviews with an elite participant, I reveal the unique challenges faced by LX researchers when interviewing elites, while highlighting the complex, discursive nature of power dynamics in relation to language and researcher positionality. Insights are provided based on my experiences to address the challenge, as an LX researcher, to be open about one's vulnerabilities, engage in dialogue with the elites and make a mutual effort to restore the power equilibrium. In the future, it would be worthwhile to further explore the effects and experiences of using LX to research on a wider scale. As the number of international scholars has risen significantly in the last few decades, how do they feel to be out of their comfort zone and research in a later-learned language? How are the relationships between researchers and the researched shaped and reshaped by the language(s) spoken? This article is an attempt to open a window for dialogue around these questions, bringing greater attention to the experiences of the growing number of scholars conducting research in LX.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Professor Julie Rattray and Professor Steve Kirk from Durham University for their kind support and constructive feedback on the earlier drafts of this paper. The author also wishes to thank all the elite participants for their contributions to the project, and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback during the revision of this paper.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the School of Education Ethics Sub-Committee at Durham University for the interviews conducted (approval reference: EDU-2023-06-28T16_45_41-zfph14) on January 19, 2024.
Informed consent statement
Participants gave written consent for the collection, analysis and publication of the retrospectively obtained and anonymised data for this study. Written informed consent (i.e., signature) was obtained prior to participating.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interest
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
The datasets generated during and/or analysed in the current study are not publicly available because qualitative interview data will be decontextualised once removed from the research location and are difficult to be utilised again.