‘Hope it’s useful’: Negotiating first and second order accounts in discourse-based interviews





Participatory research, first and second order accounts, the role of the interviewer, discourse-based interview, constructionist


Framework: Although participatory approaches highlight the expertise of the participants and assign them responsibilities over the research process, there is less systematic discussion about the participants’ actual involvement in practice especially in the analysis and interpretation of the data. Despite the claims of equal partnership, the participant is often still perceived as the subject revealing hidden yet simple inside knowledge (first order account) around which the researcher, as a neutral outsider, builds complex theories by drawing on his/her scientific expertise (second order account). Goal and method: Our goal is to investigate how first and second order accounts contribute to a multi-layered analysis of the interview encounter by challenging binary thinking. We also explore the way interactional sociolinguistic methodology can inform participatory research by analyzing the way first and second order accounts are negotiated between interviewer and participant. We present the analysis of a discourse-based interview extract from our ongoing and completed work on the discourse analysis of formality in workplace emails in multinational companies in Greece. Findings: The results illustrate iterative processes of negotiation of meaning in situ and in line with the participants’ temporary and social roles. They highlight the importance of collaborative framing of the interpretation of and theorization from data in which the participants are co-creators. Shifting from static and purely essentialistic or constructivist understandings of the interviewer and participant to a holistic approach, this paper frames the interview encounter as an interactional domain of activity that can better capture the complexity of the lived experience. 


Angouri, J. (2018). Culture, discourse and the workplace. Routledge.

Angouri, J., & Machili, I. (2020). Is talking work doing work? In Bauer, L. & Calude, A. S. (Eds.), Questions about language (pp. 18-35). Routledge.

Angouri, J., & Machili, I. (2022). ‘My job is killing me’: Discourse-based interviews reframed for linguistic discursive research. Composition Forum, 49. https://compositionforum.com/issue/49/linguistic-discursive-research.php

Abel, J., Locke, A., Condor, S., Gibson, S. & Stevenson, C. (2006). Trying similarity, doing difference: The role of interviewer self-disclosure in interview talk with young people. Qualitative Research, 6(2), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941060627

Adeagbo, M. J. (2021). An ‘outsider within’: Considering positionality and reflexivity in research on HIV-positive adolescent mothers in South Africa. Qualitative Research, 21(2), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120922072

Areljung, S., Leden, L., & Wiblom, J. (2021). Expanding the notion of ‘ownership’ in participatory research involving teachers and researchers. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 44(5), 463-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1892060

Atkinson, R. (2012). The life story interview as a mutually equitable relationship. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research (2nd ed.) (pp. 115-128). SAGE.

Atkinson, R., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 304-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004970030030

Blakely, H., & Moles, K. (2017). Interviewing in the ‘interview society’: Making visible the biographical work of producing accounts for interviews. Qualitative Research, 17(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116686825

Britton, J. (2020). Being an insider and outsider: Whiteness as a key dimension of difference. Qualitative Research, 20(3), 340-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119874599

Brown, N. (2022). Scope and continuum of participatory research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1902980

Charmaz, K. (2015). Teaching theory construction with initial grounded theory tools: A reflection on lessons and learning. Qualitative Health Research, 25(12), 1610-1622. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315613982

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford.

Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome Publishing Ltd.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The Interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 695-727). SAGE.

Gadd, D. (2004). Making sense of interviewee-interviewer dynamics in narratives about violence in intimate relationships. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(5), 383-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557092000055077

Grønnerød, J. S. (2004). On the meanings and uses of laughter in research interviews: Relationships between interviewed men and a woman interviewer. Young, 12(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308804039635

Gumperz, J. J. (2015). Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd edition) (pp. 309-323). Blackwell.

Hammersley, M. (2021). The ‘radical critique of interviews’: A response to recent comments. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(3), 393-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1841881

Haugh, M. (2012). Conversational interaction. In A. Keith & K. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 251-274). Cambridge.

Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2015). Power and politeness in the workplace. Routledge.

James, H., & Buffel, T. (2022). Co-research with older people: A systematic literature review. Ageing & Society, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21002014

Johnson, J. M., & Rowlands, T. (2012). The interpersonal dynamics of in-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research (2nd ed.) (pp. 99-113). SAGE.

Machili, I. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Variation in the writing practices and formality of eight multinational companies in Greece [Doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England, Bristol].

Machili, I., Angouri, J. & Harwood, N. (2019). ‘The snowball of emails we deal with’: CCing in multinational companies. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 5-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/23229490618815700

Niedzielski, N. A., & Preston, D. R. (2000). Folk linguistics. Walter de Gruyter.

Nind, M. (2008). Conducting qualitative research with people with learning, communication, and other disabilities: Methodological challenges. National Centre for Research Methods NCRM/012.

Nind, M. (2011). Participatory data analysis: a step too far? Qualitative Research, 11(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404310

Nind, M., Chapman, R., Seale, J., & Tilley, L. (2016). The conundrum of training and capacity building for people with learning disabilities doing research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 29(6), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12213

Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 221-236). Longman.

Rapley, T. (2012). The (extra)ordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research (2nd ed.) (pp. 541-554). SAGE.

Rix, J., H. Carrisoza, H. G., Seale, J., Sheehy, K., and Hayhoe. S. (2019). The while of participation: A systematic review of participatory research involving people with sensory and intellectual impairments. Disability & Society, 35(7), 1031-1057. http://doi.org/10. 1080/09687599.2019.1669431

Rix, J., Carrizosa, H. G., Sheehy, K., Seale, J., & Hayhoe, S. (2022). Taking risks to enable participatory data analysis and dissemination: A research note. Qualitative Research, 22(1), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120965356

Schutz, A. (1953). The Problem of social reality: Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14(1), 1-38. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2851-6_1

Seale, J., Nind, M., Tilley, L., & Chapman, R. (2015). Negotiating a third space for participatory research with people with learning disabilities: An examination of boundaries and spatial practices. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 28(4), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2015.1081558

Silverman, D. (2017). How was it for you? The Interview Society and the irresistible rise of the (poorly analyzed) interview. Qualitative research, 17(2), 144-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116668231

Tanner, D. (2012) Co-research with older people with dementia: Experience and reflections. Journal of Mental Health, 21(3), 296-306. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2011.651658

Tilley, E., Strnadová, I., Ledger, S., Walmsley, J., Loblinzk, J., Christian, P. A., & Arnold, Z. J. (2021). ‘Working together is like a partnership of entangled knowledge’: Exploring the sensitivities of doing participatory data analysis with people with learning disabilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(5), 567-579. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1857970

Virkkula-Ra?isa?nen, T. (2010). Linguistic repertoires and semiotic resources in interaction: A Finnish manager as a mediator in a multilingual meeting. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 505-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377315

Viruru, R., & Cannella, G. S. (2006). A postcolonial critique of the ethnographic interview. In N. K. Denzin, & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the conservative challenge (pp. 175-191). Left Coast Press.

Warren, C. (2012). Interviewing as social interaction. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research (2nd ed.) (pp. 129-142). Sage.

Warren, M. (2014). “Preparation is everything”: Meetings in professional contexts in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 12-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.03.001




How to Cite

Machili, I., & Angouri, J. (2023). ‘Hope it’s useful’: Negotiating first and second order accounts in discourse-based interviews . New Trends in Qualitative Research, 16, e775. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.16.2023.e775