9
“the dirt of doubt and ambiguity is where the ore is hidden” (Kozol 1995, 242).
However, we invariably (eventually) got back to the subject at hand, my research. I
understand however, that whether an interview was short and “to the point” or long and
convoluted, these interviews are but extractions of snatches of participants’ lives, and not
their whole lives. Jonathan Kozol explains his problematic relationships to his
interviewees in the following way:
One of the things that’s often worried me about the interviews I’ve had
with children and adults in the course of writing books over the years is
that they do not tend to reflect the shifting mood and changing points of
view of the people I have talked with. They end up, inevitably, as “one-
time snapshots.” Most journalistic interviews are like that. I have often
thought there was a certain arrogance about the act of “freezing” people in
this manner. “I came on a Tuesday. This is what she said, so this must be
what she believes.” I often find on Friday, she does not believe exactly
what I thought I heard on Tuesday; people also simply change their
minds… (Kozol 1995, 246)
This passage reminds me of the intrinsic limitations of my interview research. However,
I do feel that its possible significance for the community in Hawai‘i and elsewhere is
worth the risk of seeming arrogant.
Another way power is problematic because of the researcher’s power of
interpretation. This problem can be alleviated by providing the participants with drafts of
the transcribed interviews and inviting them to make comments on either their own
citations, or the research as a whole in order to provide accurate insight into their
answers. I attempted to do this, with one of the interviews so far, but Dr. Abbott never
responded. It is possible that nothing in the interview transcript struck her as out of
place. It is also possible that since she is still very involved with her botany research at
the University of Hawai`i, Manoa, she neither had the time, nor the inclination to
respond.