Women's Studies International Forum, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.

553-564, 1997
Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0277-5395/97 $17.00 + .130

PII S0277-5395(97)00043-5

FEMINIST RESEARCH

INTERVIEWING MEN:
VULNERABILITIES AND DILEMMAS

DEBORAH LEE
Centre for the Study of Women and Gender, Universityof Warwick, Coventry,CV4 7AL, UK

Synopsis- In stark contrast to the ready availability of sophisticated analyses of woman-to-woman

interviews,insightsinto the character of woman-to-maninterviewingare disappointinglyrare. This paper
seeks, therefore, to stimulate debate on this terrain. The female author draws on her experiences of
discussing workplace harassment with male informantsto reflect upon her impressions of discussing
sexualised topics in the context of gendered interview dynamics. The article focuses on interviewer
vulnerability. For the very nature of a one-off interview means that the interviewer has no prior
knowledgeof her informantagainstwhich she can judge whether or not to feel threatenedby the prospect
of interactingwith him in the private setting of the interview. In response to the underplayingof this
concern in existing discussionsof interviewing,the author details her own repertoire of personal safety
strategies and analyses the dilemmas regarding control, rapport, and reciprocity that arose from these
tactics. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION article, I focus on my personal experiences of

interviewing men for the study. I concentrate on
The research upon which this paper is based the vulnerabilities I perceived in this fieldwork
explores men and w o m e n ' s experiences and and the dilemmas regarding control, rapport,
perceptions of workplace bullying, sexism, and and reciprocity that arose from my concerns.
sexual harassment in the contemporary British Feminist sociologists have often reflected
context. I interviewed 21 men and 29 women upon w o m e n ' s experiences of interviewing
who had suffered, perpetrated, observed, or in- other women. Oakley (1981) drew upon her
tervened against these forms of harassment. experiences of i n t e r v i e w i n g w o m e n about
Forty-eight of the informants were White. Two motherhood to roundly critique unproblema-
were Black. Their ages ranged from early 20s to tised methodological textbook directives on in-
late 60s. Only one interviewee identified him- terviewing. She made the then radical proposals
self as gay. No informant mentioned disabilities. that the relationship of the interviewer and in-
At the time of the interviews I was 23. I am terviewee should be nonhierarchical and the
female, White, able-bodied, single, and hetero- interviewer should be prepared to invest her
sexual. My research is intended to offer a gen- own personal identity in the relationship (Oak-
der analysis of types of workplace harassment. I ley, 1981, p. 41). Oakley's insights provoked - -
am also assessing the interplay between forms and continue to provoke - - much thoughtful
of harassment - - therefore, all interviews in- debate among feminists. For example, Finch
volved discussion of sexual harassment. In this (1984) reflected upon her studies of mothers
involved in playgroups and her discussions with
clergy wives to comment on the distinctive
The author is grateful to Janet Foster, Tony Elger, Carol
Wolkowitz, and the two anonymousreferees for their help- character of the woman-to-woman interview.
ful commentson drafts of this article. She noted that her female informants showed a
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. high degree of trust in her and expected her to

553
554 DEBORAH LEE

understand what they meant because of the viewees often attempted to control the interview
shared gender of interviewer and interviewee situation. Smart (1984), in her historical and
(Finch, 1984, p. 76). Feminists have also prob- theoretical study of the law and its development
lematised this assertion of woman-to-woman in relation to the family and marriage, explicitly
identification. Riessman (1991), in a discussion (but pessimistically) commented on men's con-
of interviewing women about their life histories, trol of interviews. She noted that in order to
explained how two women interviewees - - one complete an interview female interviewers may
Anglo and one Hispanic - - used different nar- feel obliged to listen placidly while male inter-
rative genres to make meaning of their experi- viewees express sexist views. She related this
ences of marital separation. The Anglo woman complicity to women's everyday role as the
was fully understood by her White, middle- facilitators of male speech, and concluded that
class interviewer. However, for the Hispanic the feminist interviewer can experience the in-
woman talking to an Anglo interviewer, gender terview as doubly oppressive. First, she is un-
was not enough to create the shared understand- able to express alternative views and secondly
ings necessary for a successful interview. Riess- she reconfirms the typical model of male-
man noted that the lack of shared cultural norms female verbal exchange (Smart, 1984, pp. 155-
about how a narrative should be organised, cou- 156). Though Finch had argued that same-
pled with unfamiliar cultural themes in the con- gender identification is a central feature of
tent of the narrative itself, created barriers to fruitful interviews, McKee and O'Brien's expe-
understanding (Riessman, 1991, p. 217). Femi- riences implicitly suggested that different-
nists have also begun to express concern about gender identification might be equally impor-
intimacy in interviews. Stacey (1991) ques- tant in certain research projects. They reported
tioned whether the appearance of respect for that male interviewees found cross-gender talk
and equality with research subjects masks ex- about pregnancy easier, more appropriate, and
ploitation (Stacey, 1991, p. 113). It may be seen, less threatening than discussing this topic with
therefore, that sophisticated analyses of femi- men (McKee & O'Brien, 1983, p. 153). Padfield
nists interviewing women are readily available and Proctor (1996), researching the work, fam-
to offer fledgling researchers some guidance ily experiences, and aspirations of young adult
through the ethics and politics of this form of women, have recently provided analysis of the
interview, and furthermore, that the developing effect of interviewer's gender on the interview
analysis of woman-to-woman interviews con- process. They discovered that many of their
tinually advances feminist theorising on the re- interviewees did not think it should matter
search process. whether they spoke to a female or a male inter-
In stark contrast to feminist interest in the viewer. However, the women recognised that
dynamics of woman-to-woman interviewing, this formal principle of equality applied only
feminist reflections on women interviewing under certain conditions relating to their own
men remain in disappointingly short supply. skills at dealing with "masculinity" and to the
McKee and O'Brien (1983) and Smart (1984), male researcher's ability to put aside inappro-
however, offered important exceptions to this priate features of a form of masculinity - - such
omission. Their exploratory contributions, un- as arrogance and failing to listen. The explor-
fortunately, have inexplicably failed to stimu- atory insights offered by these analyses, I would
late any significant debate. McKee and O'Brien suggest, clearly show that cross-gender inter-
drew upon their research on new fathers and viewing is distinct from woman-to-woman in-
lone fathers to illustrate how gender has pro- terviewing and is deserving of much more sus-
found implications both for what is disclosed or tained attention than it has yet received from
withheld, pursued or neglected in interviews feminists. In this paper, therefore, I hope to
(McKee & O'Brien, 1983, p. 147). While Oak- begin a debate on this largely undisturbed ter-
ley had encouraged interviewers to interview rain, by reflecting openly upon my personal
nonhierarchically, McKee and O'Brien's work experiences of interviewing men. I begin by
implicitly contested the assumption that inter- explaining why ! feel that interviewer vulnera-
viewers always have more power than inter- bility might have a central place in discussions
viewees. They report that their male inter- of woman-to-man interviewing.
 Interviewing Men 555

I N T E R V I E W E R VULNERABILITY and employees who make home visits (such as

social workers and community health workers).
First of all, I point out that my particular re- I should like to propose that researchers making
search area can be defined as "sensitive," in the home visits to carry out interviews and inter-
terms proposed by Renzetti and Lee (1993). viewing on a one-to-one basis in a private office
They explain that a sensitive topic is one that might have a place on this list of potentially
potentially poses for those involved a substan- risky occupations. For, though at first glance it
tial threat, the emergence of which renders would appear that people who respond willingly
problematic for the researcher and/or the re- to appeals for interviewees have nothing in
searched the collection, holding, and/or dissem- common with aggressive train fare evaders, it
ination of research data (Renzetti & Lee, 1993, would be naive to consider one-to-one inter-
p. 5). Though I always began interviews by viewing as an entirely safe proposition. This is
explaining that only I would hear the tape of the so because of the very nature of much field-
interview, that I would destroy the tape after I work. People previously unknown to the re-
had transcribed it, and that I would not use searcher come forward in response to appeals
interviewees' names or any other identifying for informants and offer to discuss their experi-
details in my work, many informants returned to ences. The researcher, delighted to have ac-
the question of confidentiality during the inter- cessed responses, arranges a meeting - - but
view, asking, "You won't put the company does so without any concrete guarantee that the
name/my name in this, will you?" For my part, respondent' s motives are nonthreatening, or that
I continue to be concerned about how I will be they will remain so in the fluid context of the
able to negotiate confidentiality and specificity interview. While the possibility for trouble is, of
when writing up the research. For it is often course, present for both male and female inter-
analytically important, but problematic as re- viewers interviewing either women or men, I
gards anonymity, to link an informant's em- would argue that the risk is currently of height-
ployment context with the experience of harass- ened concern to women who interview men,
ment they have reported. These points, often given evidence of the frequency of men' s sexual
discussed in literature on the research process, violence against women (see, e.g., Kelly, 1988),
show that research is a risky enterprise. One and the ability that men have (whether it is
form of risk that is less often highlighted, how- intentional or unintentional) of making women
ever, concerns the potential vulnerability of in- fear attack. My argument here is not rooted in
terviewers in interview situations and in what biological determinism, nor am I suggesting
ways this potential vulnerability might affect that all men are potential rapists. Instead, I am
features of interviewing like control, rapport, stressing that the very nature of a one-off inter-
and reciprocity. I stress that I am not claiming view means that the woman interviewer has no
that a focus on these topics exhausts original prior knowledge of her male informant against
discussion of the dynamics of my cross-gender which she can judge whether or not to feel
interviews. Another very distinct theme - - threatened or concerned by the prospect of in-
which will be the subject of another paper - - teracting with him in a private setting. I am, of
was men's conceptualisation of the interview as course, painfully aware that my argument here
an important opportunity to set the record could be misinterpreted and turned to women's
straight about why, for example, they had been disadvantage. I emphasise that I am not arguing
dismissed from a job. In this article, however, I for policing of women's movements. I am not
am concerned with beginning to develop a sus- saying that women should not interview men. I
tained analysis of certain, previously unex- do not believe that the ability to cope with
plored dynamics of woman-to-man interview- violent behaviour is solely a male attribute. In-
ing. stead, I do think that until men's behaviour
Poyner and Warne (1988, p. 5) note that undergoes radical change - - (I am stressing,
many jobs where staff are vulnerable to violence therefore, that men's oppression of women is
from members of the public are those that in- not fixed) - - it remains prudent for women
volve working in isolation from immediate col- interviewers to be realistic about the potential
leagues. As examples of such jobs, they cite bus for trouble that any man may present. I would
drivers, railway ticket collectors, interviewers suggest that this caution is especially salient
in cubicles (such as housing and benefits staff), when an interview juxtaposes privacy of setting
556 DEBORAH LEE

with an agenda specifying discussion of sex. attention to his general physical prowess and
This does include sexual harassment interviews, strength. Although he did not initiate any
for men often conceptualise sexual harassment physical contact, his unpredictable behaviour
as being about sex rather than power (see Wat- in the car left the interviewer very relieved to
son, 1994). The experiences of feminist re- have "escaped" and at that point glad that
searchers can be drawn in to illustrate my point. the study was not longitudinal in nature!
For example, Kitzinger, in her work on anti- (McKee & O'Brien, 1983, p. 158, italics in
lesbian harassment, reports that after an aca- original)
demic discussion of current research projects - -
during which she told a male colleague that she While this example does indeed show how in-
was a lesbian - - he attempted to kiss her, and terview roles in woman-to-man interviewing
was baffled by her outrage "clearly believing are sometimes finely negotiated and often con-
that in coming out as lesbian I had 'introduced flated, the presentation of the incident disap-
sex into the conversation'" (Kitzinger, 1994, p. pointingly minimises the safety implications
135). I would suggest that this experience may that might be drawn from the account. For
be added to McKee and O'Brien's comment through the inappropriate employment of ital-
that: "... any young woman who voluntarily ics, inverted commas, and exclamation marks,
enters into a 'strange' man's house alone may the episode is presented almost as an adventure
be seen as somehow 'asking' for trouble - - a story, rather than a serious exposition of the
form of 'contributory negligence?'" (McKee & difficulties women may face when interviewing
O'Brien, 1983, p. 157). Thus, I conclude that if men. In contrast to McKee and O'Brien, other
a woman researcher interviews a man in his female researchers (e.g., Foster, 1994; Scott,
own home or invites him into a private office - - 1984) present their accounts of difficulties en-
especially to discuss experiences that men may countered during research of nonsexual subjects
think involve sex - - she may have inadvertently in a much more sophisticated fashion. For ex-
created a potentially problematical situation. ample, Scott reports that in her study of aca-
This possibility for trouble is seriously un- demia she carried out an interview with a male
derplayed in existing studies in which women postgraduate in his home. On the telephone to
interviewed men. McKee and O'Brien, for ex- arrange the appointment he said that the inter-
ample, do not fully develop their comment that, view would have to take place in his bedroom,
though the potential for sexual violation is om- as he had the builders in and the rest of the
nipresent, it " m a y or may not present itself in house was a mess. When Scott arrived at the
individual interactions" (McKee & O'Brien, house, however,
1983, p. 157). They report that on two occasions
in their study of lone fathers the female inter-
viewer sensed real physical danger. They detail The room, to my disquiet, was in pristine
one example to show how the boundaries be- condition, with not a loose floorboard in
tween woman as a "scientific observer," confi- sight. Waiting for him to return [from the
dant, and sexual being are sometimes finely bank], I went through a rather harrowing
negotiated and often conflated. The example time wondering whether he'd insist on me
involves a seemingly even-tempered male infor- interviewing him in his bedroom when this
mant who offered his female interviewer a lift to room seemed perfectly adequate. I ' d almost
the railway station after his interview. During made up my mind to slip quietly away when
the journey he became increasingly enraged my interviewee returned, and I asked him
about his ex-wife's behaviour: why we couldn't stay where we were. Point-
ing to the cage in the corner, he said: "It's the
• . . eventually driving past the station. When budgies, once we start talking, they'll chatter
he drove past the next station, the inter- through the interview" (Scott, 1984, p. 170,
viewer became very worried, tried to calm italics added)
him down and neutralise the topic of conver-
sation. At the third station she insisted that he Foster offers a similar account, drawn from
stop and let her out there. This was an anx- refections on her research into generational at-
ious moment because during the interview he titudes to law and order. A male police officer
had described his karate skills and drawn invited her for a drink with his colleagues. De-
 Interviewing Men 557

spite her protestations, he insisted on driving tive of the m e n ' s worrying ulterior motives to
her to the pub. However, once in the car: manoeuvre these researchers into bedrooms and
cars. It is a sad reflection of the widespread
• . . [he] asked whether I would mind drop- underplaying of w o m e n ' s safety worries that
ping by his house on the way to the pub so researchers conclude their accounts of serious
that he could let his dog out. I agreed but incidents by minimising their gravity. It is evi-
became a little concerned when he told me dent that women interviewers are caught in a
that his wife and children were away for the no-win situation. For if we feared that some-
weekend and that he had borrowed a friend's thing might happen and were wrong, our wor-
car especially for the evening. After a detour ries are characterised as an overreaction; yet if
to his house we went to the pub. It was now we do not recognise the potential for trouble in
evident that no other officers were coming a situation and trouble does occur, we will, of
for a drink and that I was in a strange pub course, be blamed for failing to take precau-
some distance from home. The officer chat- tions.
ted freely and became very unguarded in his I am aware that some readers will be con-
comments• He told me that he had checked cerned by the prominence I am giving to vul-
up on me before inviting me for a drink (and nerability in this paper. It may be said that my
had gone to considerable lengths to do so). I focus on this issue has arisen out of the subject
was both extremely angry and frightened by of my research. Reviewing literature on male
this time . . . . I resolved the situation by violence against women as a starting point for
talking about a "partner" to whom I was o n e ' s own research is, as Kelly (1988, p. 15) has
very attached in order to reinforce my lack of pointed out, a way to become even more over-
interest in him (Foster, 1994, pp. 91-92, ital- whelmed by the pervasiveness of male violence•
ics added)• I would argue, however, that my wariness of
male informants is not just specific to my im-
These two accounts offer detailed and useful mersion in this particular research field. Instead
comments on how the actions of male inter- it is a feature of many w o m e n ' s feelings about
viewees and men encountered in the course of men, a consequence of m e n ' s continued abuse
research can be frightening for female inter- of women. Though it is well-documented that
viewers. However, both authors conclude their women have more to fear from men they know
reflections in a way that parallels M c K e e and than from strangers, women often apply what
O ' B r i e n ' s disappointing account. Scott reports, they have learned from specific incidents in-
"In the end the interview went without a hitch" volving known men to a general distrust of all
(Scott, 1984, p. 170). Foster explains, "Eventu- men. The comments of one of my female infor-
ally the PC drove me home and I did not come mants, who had experienced sexual harassment
to any h a r m " (Foster, 1994, p. 92). It is, of some 20 years previously - - in which men in a
course, part of the narrative of the accounts (and male-dominated office had discussed their sex
reassuring for the peace of mind of subsequent lives in front of her - - provide illustration of
female researchers) for the authors to indicate these points:
that the worst possible scenario (rape, perhaps)
did not occur. However, by focussing on what I ' v e not actually shared an office with a man
did not happen, Scott and Foster are perhaps a g a i n . . . I just distrust them. I ' m very, very
overlooking what did happen in these situations. nervous when they're around. I ' m on edge
The interviews did not progress "without a the whole time, unless I know them very,
hitch" and the authors did " c o m e to harm." For very well, or if it's a friend of the family. But
both women are very clearly reporting that these a male stranger, I go completely on edge. If
situations frightened them. There do not seem to one comes into my office, even, it makes me
be very persuasive reasons why Scott's inter- nervous.
viewee could not have mentioned his budgie in
his initial contact with her, or why the police A further female informant, a doctoral student
officer Foster encountered could not have en- in an education department, expanded upon this
quired whether she might like to accompany wariness many women feel about men. She
him on a date. That neither of these more explained how her mistrust of an academic was
straightforward scenarios took place is sugges- considerably heightened when she shifted from
558 DEBORAH LEE

being a member of his seminar group to having private interview arose when a man rang me to
to see him alone in his office for Ph.D. super- volunteer his son for the research. The man said
vision: that his son could not come to the University
because he was working and that he too had
The minute I walked into his office I felt like information for me. I felt, therefore, that I ought
I was being mentally undressed. I w a s n ' t to go to the house to do the interview. After I
happy about that. I had sat in on one of his had agreed to do so, I became very concerned
courses the year before, and had felt a bit like about the risks involved in interviewing in a
that then, but it d i d n ' t matter because I was m a n ' s home, where "he could have set anything
just sitting in on a Master's course . . . . But up." Unable to control the setting of the inter-
as soon as he became my s u p e r v i s o r . . , as view, I began to think about how to present
soon as you walked in it was suddenly like a myself in order to avoid the potential for trou-
sexually charged atmosphere, and y o u ' d ble. M c K e e and O'Brien offer the following
think: " I ' m here to discuss my work" but thoughts:
you c a n ' t discuss your research when you
d o n ' t know if he's going to say something or The researcher employed a variety of strate-
do something. gies to offset any risk o f sexual confronta-
tion: t a k i n g c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n s a b o u t
make-up and clothes; and maintaining a
I discussed my reticence to interview men in
" p r o f e s s i o n a l " manner when ambiguities
private with several female informants (women
arose. (McKee & O'Brien, 1983, p. 158)
who had been bullied by women, for example,
as well as women who had been sexually ha-
Reading this advice prior to accessing male
rassed by men) and women friends. They all
informants who wanted to be interviewed in
reassured me that they too would not feel happy
their own homes, I had viewed M c K e e and
about interviewing unknown men, in a private
O ' B r i e n ' s comments as simplistic. For they
setting, with an agenda that included sexual
seem to imply that all men are uniform and can
harassment. As one female informant said,
be deflected from sexual confrontation by their
" T h e y could have set anything up, you don't
woman interviewer dressing in a sack. Male
know what y o u ' r e going into." On the basis of
sexual attack on w o m e n is not related to
w o m e n ' s knowledge about men, therefore, I
whether the woman concerned is devastatingly
decided to interview all male informants in pub-
attractive or whether the male attacker might
lic places. I made no distinctions on the grounds
perceive her to be so. However, with a one-to-
o f whether the male informant identified him-
one interview with a man looming, I realised
self as a " v i c t i m " or perpetrator o f harassment.
that what is most important about changing
For, as Stanko (1994), in her reflections on
o n e ' s appearance is not that it will be a fail-safe
feminist criminology, comments, " . . . distin-
way to deflect a man from sexual interest, but
guishing between the dangerous and not so dan-
that making the changes functions as a psycho-
gerous men is extremely difficult" (Stanko,
logical prop for the woman interviewer - - it is
1994, p. 101). I was aware (and still remain
a means of forgetting that rapists do not wear
concerned), however, that my decision robbed
T-shirts marked "rapist" and that they may even
male informants of agency. I put m y own
be turned on by an interviewer dressed in a
wishes before the wishes of male informants. I
sack. I did wonder whether I ought to "get
seek to defend my action by stressing that all
married" in order to interview men, for as
interviewers should be able to balance their own
Gutek (1985, p. 58) comments in her study of
comfort with that of the interviewee.
sex and the workplace, women and men who do
not belong to someone else are apparently per-
SAFETY STRATEGIES ceived as fair game, but I was concerned that
this would be deception and would prove diffi-
Illustrating the control that informants can exert cult to sustain if someone started asking ques-
over the interview, however, some male inter- tions about my husband. Instead I concentrated
viewees were not able or willing to give in to on clothing. I dressed plainly and primly in
my decision to interview them in public. In total trousers and a T-shirt buttoned up to the neck,
I interviewed nine men in private. M y first and wore no jewellery or makeup. Though mak-
 Interviewing Men 559

ing an effort with o n e ' s appearance is usually like? Is she nice?" Jim said I was "very nice,"
done for oneself, some men may think other- omitting to mention that I looked rather scruffy.
wise, so my clothing told them that I had made This situation illustrates the dilemma a woman
no effort at all on their account. I carried a interviewer can find herself in with regard to
personal alarm (although I have to question its dress. She can either dress plainly to avoid the
efficacy as once - - while in the University - - potential for trouble, or alternatively she can
the alarm went off accidentally, and I had to run deck herself out in a " f e m i n i n e " fashion in
the length of a corridor and unlock a door before order to access male informants.
I could throw the contents of my bag on the Following M c K e e and O ' B r i e n ' s (1983, p.
floor to find and stop the alarm. I noted that 158) advice to maintain a "professional man-
while this was happening I heard someone ob- ner," in most cases I maintained a serious ex-
serve, without any urgency: "That sounds like pression when interviewing men. An exception
an alarm," but that no one came to see what was to this is the obligatory laughing at inter-
going on). Having altered my appearance and viewees' jokes. Though, on one occasion - -
purchased an alarm, I felt that I had at least gone showing the difficulties o f interviewing in dis-
some way to minimising the potential for trou- tracting public places - - I was interviewing a
ble and the threat of sanction if trouble did arise. man in a crowded University bar, and I com-
For if I ended up raped or murdered no one rnitted the unforgivable sin of not laughing at
could say that I had been "contributorially neg- his j o k e , simply because I could not hear
ligent." I wore some variation of this interview- enough of it to catch on in time. I would argue,
ing " u n i f o r m " for the majority of the interviews however, that when they are faced with male
I carried out with men. As most of the inter- jokes in the context of interviews about sexual
views took place during a heatwave, when I behaviour, women interviewers face a dilemma
would have preferred to have worn shorts, I between "appropriate" female innocence
often felt policed and hot. Paralleling my earlier (which also has the effect of keeping the inter-
observation that many women are wary of men, view on a very professional level) and the j o b of
I also have to question the uniqueness of my maintaining "rapport" with informants. For ex-
dress policing. A female informant, a Ph.D ample, a male firefighter was telling me about
Physics student and research assistant, invited sexual behaviour between firefighters, which he
me to her University to tell me about her expe- clearly found amusing:
riences of sexism in her male-dominated depart-
ment. She told me, while wearing roughly the There was one bloke who was renowned for
same outfit as I wore to interview men: getting his cock out, sticking it in p e o p l e ' s
ears and their faces, so that people would
You feel uncomfortable with men, with the sort of vaguely wake up to see this horrific
things you wear in summer. I w o u l d n ' t walk monster in their faces!
round during the day in shorts without feel-
ing uncomfortable. I ' d feel too conspicuous. For the sake of facilitating the interview, the
M y University is full o f middle-aged men most appropriate strategy for a female inter-
who h a v e n ' t seen a pair of legs in a while. I ' d viewer to take is to laugh at this point. This is
perhaps go back in after tea with shorts on, what I did (though with restraint). However,
when there are less people around. women also realise, as Cockburn (1991) ob-
serves in her study of m e n ' s resistance to equal
On one occasion, however, my prim scruffiness opportunities, that " a woman cannot operate by
nearly worked to my disadvantage. Jim - - a m e n ' s rules and get away with it" (Cockburn,
technical officer who had been bullied by his 1991, p. 156). When a woman laughs at a m a n ' s
manager - - told me about his colleague, Tho- sexual j o k e she harms her reputation. Though
mas, whose flirtatious behaviour with women this instance shows how humour around sexual
colleagues he supposed I might term as sexual subjects is male-defined, not maintaining a se-
harassment. He rang Thomas and asked him if rious demeanour functioned on one occasion as
he would come down to be interviewed about a way to subvert a male informant's sexism.
his "experiences of working with w o m e n . " Smart (1984) is right to point out that female
Clearly illustrating some m e n ' s sexualisation of interviewers may feel constrained not to jeop-
all women, Thomas asked: " W h a t does she look ardise the interview by challenging sexist com-
560 DEBORAH LEE

ments made by interviewees, but making a chal- interviewing. This particular interview high-
lenge should not just be conceptualised as lights why an implication of the undesirability
telling the informant that his views are untena- of woman-to-man research must not be unprob-
ble. It is sometimes possible to keep the inter- lematically drawn from a discussion of vulner-
view going while also clearly not agreeing with ability. For, in this case, my noting of how
the views presented by an informant. Thomas Thomas gets away with sexism might not have
told me how he liked to antagonise female col- been so easily accessible to a heterosexual male
leagues and make them argue with him about researcher. This is important because finding
"the place of women in society." I inadvertently out how men get away with sexism is a first step
broke the mould of his usual m a l e - f e m a l e in- toward formulating strategies to stop them do-
teraction because instead of disagreeing with ing so.
him, I found his opinions amusing:

Thomas: I ' m a bit of a chauvinist really. BLIND DATES

Deborah: Are you? Thomas: Well, that's
what they tell me. But I only do it jokingly. Interviewing men in public can also present
I tell them where women should be. I d o n ' t problems for female interviewers and male in-
really mean it. I only do it to get them, to get terviewees. Often when I interviewed men in
their backs up. Deborah: You tell them that public places we exchanged descriptions so that
women aren't as good as men? Thomas: we would be able to recognise each other. On
Yeah, I tell the truth [interviewer laughs; several occasions, however, male informants ei-
interviewee smiles; glint appears in his eye]. ther provided no description of themselves or a
Yes, I often say that. I say that they're only very sketchy one ( " I ' l l be wearing green" (?) "I
good for three things in life - - ironing, cook- look old and haggard"). When I went to inter-
ing, and in bed. That's my usual. But I only view Jim, we exchanged descriptions on the
do it to get them . . . Deborah: You enjoy telephone before he came to the station to fetch
that? Thomas: Yeah. In fact, the more they me. While I had given a description of what I
respond the better. was wearing, Jim had merely told me that he
was 6' 2". Thus, I had to eye up all the tall men
Laughing inappropriately in this instance - - who came past. Many were not very salubrious.
which arose while Thomas was telling me that Jim later told me that the town is " a very
his behaviour toward his female colleagues dangerous place." I would argue that having to
could not be termed "sexual harassment" be- eye up passing men to decide whether they are
cause it was " f u n " - - allowed me to very subtly the informant being awaited is a particularly
challenge T h o m a s ' s views. The interaction also unattractive consequence of being reluctant to
allowed me to guess how he might be getting meet men in their homes - - especially if the
away with such behaviour. I would argue that man is late, or fails to tuna up at all. Staring
being able to do so arose as a direct conse- hopefully at every passing male gives the im-
quence of the different genders and shared het- pression that you are desperately trying to at-
erosexuality o f interviewer and interviewee. I tract some male interest, or perhaps touting for
had been informed that many of T h o m a s ' s fe- custom. Walking around with a different man
male colleagues found him attractive. I was, every day, and being seen "socialising" in res-
therefore, surprised when he turned out to be taurants with quantities of men could also ad-
quite u n a p p e a l i n g , and was very s h a b b i l y versely affect a w o m a n ' s reputation. Meeting
dressed. I was puzzling over how such a man publicly can be seen to give the interview the
could be so attractive to women until the inter- unwanted quality of a blind date. A female
change reproduced above, when he smiled and informant illustrated this possibility when she
his eyes lit up mischievously. His eyes were asked me, light-heartedly, if she should carry a
clearly the means by which he avoided being newspaper, perhaps, or wear a pink carnation in
seen as a sexual harasser and was instead clas- her buttonhole when she came to meet me.
sified as a flirtatious man who liked to have fun Unsurprisingly perhaps, Thomas had also con-
at work. Though I am stressing the potential ceptualised the interview in this way. We met at
risks of woman-to-man interviewing in this pa- the station and walked into the town centre to
per, I am not arguing against woman-to-man find a pub where we could talk. He held the pub
 Interviewing Men 561

door open for me: "This is like a blind date, therefore lacked the social opportunities they
isn't it!," he giggled. He refused to let me pay had enjoyed whilst at work. On one occasion, a
for the drinks (he was the only male informant man chivalrously carried the tray to our table,
to do this), and when we were settled at a table and on most occasions the location of the table
(unfortunately, right next to some sort of juke was a matter of informal negotiation between
box, which activated itself unexpectedly and myself and the informant on the basis of where
extremely loudly p r o d u c i n g high-pitched seemed like a quiet place to sit.
chicken noises at two inopportune moments in Reciprocity is not, however, just about the
our conversation) he commented: giving and receiving of cups of tea. Instead it
relates to reciprocity of information. At the out-
When I come in here next time, the barmaids set of my research I worried about how I ought
will be asking me who you were. They'll to react if a self-confessed sexual harasser asked
say: " W h o was that lady you were with on me where I lived. How would I be able to show
Friday? You're always in here with someone reciprocity whilst also ensuring my own safety?
different! Was that your g i r l f r i e n d ? " . . , no, To explore this concern, I corresponded with a
[suddenly deflated tone of voice] they'll ask female researcher who had carried out inter-
if you are my daughter. views with men accused of sexual harassment.
She explained that she had kept the exchange of
Most of my male interviewees accepted that personal information to a minimum (Watson,
we would talk in public without comment. personal communication, 1995). Watson's re-
Though I feel that interviewing men in public is sponse clearly shows that feminists should not
essential for the peace of mind of any female seek to establish rules about reciprocity of in-
interviewer who feels uncomfortable with the formation in interviews. For, paralleling many
thought of interviewing men privately, I was conversations in everyday life, what is revealed
concerned that interviewing in public might and concealed by interviewer and interviewee in
harm the quality of interviewer-interviewee in- an interview situation is related to a consider-
teraction and would not afford any opportunities ation of what purpose responses may be used
to see reciprocity in action. Bergen (1993, pp. for. In my interviews, fortunately, the need to
206-207), referring to her research on women weigh up risk and reciprocity rarely arose. Men
who had experiences of marital rape, comments and women seldom asked direct questions about
that a special relationship was established when my personal life. They even more rarely en-
she interviewed women in their own homes. quired about any personal experiences of ha-
This was because the woman felt comfortable rassment I might have. Instead, most of my
and in control of the situation. The interviewee, informants preferred to concentrate firmly on
rather than the interviewer, set the agenda of the the injustice of their own experience.
interaction. This reciprocity in interviews leads The first public interview I carried out took
Finch to comment that the interviewer is being place in a fairly upmarket restaurant on the
welcomed into the interviewee's home as a University of Warwick campus. When I had
guest, not merely tolerated as an inquisitor been there before it had always seemed quiet.
(Finch, 1984, p. 73). Though I agree that some The first time I went there with an informant,
interviewees may be more comfortable and feel however, it was full of people. This sharply
more in control when being interviewed in their drew out the question of risks for informants - -
own homes, I would argue that taking male for, in this case, some of the man's information
informants for a cup of tea in a restaurant can be was extremely sensitive. David explained that if
seen as a welcoming, ice-breaking interaction anyone found out that he had told me that a
that can establish a good relationship between colleague had threatened him with a gun in the
interviewer and interviewee - - it is an instance factory where he had been working "we could
where the interviewer reciprocates for the infor- both go to prison." David sat down next to a
mation the interviewee is giving. My male in- fountain/place where people collect trays and
formants often said that they liked being treated cans of lemonade. This produced unfortunate
to a cup of tea. They seemed to view our meet- background noises of people talking, trays
ing as a social occasion, perhaps especially crashing, and water flowing. However, though
since several interviewees were unemployed the restaurant was full, because of the placing of
because of the harassment they had suffered and tables and the acoustics of the room, it was
562 DEBORAH LEE

possible to have a private conversation. Had this as well as in private. I would add that these
informant expressed reservations about talking incidents also usefully show how substantive
in public, I would, of course, have taken him to data and methodology are inextricably linked.
my office. I would, however, have wanted to For, though the examples detailed arise out of
take the precaution of telling someone that I had my experiences of interviewing, they are also
taken him there. illustrations of the phenomenon under consid-
eration in my research. David's actions consti-
tute some very subtle forms of harassment that
SUBTLE SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND men can perpetrate against women. He made
GENDER SENSITIVITY
me feel uncomfortable. This clearly contests the
feminist assumption that interviewers always
While interviewing David, the batteries in my have more power than interviewees.
tape recorder ran out. Pointing out that he had In contrast to David, other male interviewees
plenty of free time, having been dismissed from showed a delightfully high level of gender sen-
the job where he was harassed, he agreed to sitivity toward my position as a lone female
come back another day. On the day of our interviewer. I would hope that they apply this
second appointment, David was late arriving, sensitivity to all their interactions with women.
and to save time he drove straight up to the When Jim and I discussed the arrangements for
building where I was waiting instead of going to our meeting at his workplace, a long way from
the car park first. He said that he would have to my University, he said that he would "collect"
park his car. I directed him to a multistorey car me from the railway station, because security at
park. He claimed not to understand my direc- his workplace is tight and I would not gain
tions and suggested: " W h y don't you hop in access unless he accompanied me. The idea of
and show m e T ' I declined and repeated the being "collected" worried me, as it might imply
directions, stressing how easy it would be to that he would come by car and expect me to get
find the car park. He did not push any further. I in to it. When I rang him from the railway
worried about whether I had offended him. I had station to say that I had arrived, however, he
avoided meeting him in my office, yet meeting said that he would "walk up and fetch me."
him in public had presented me with a further Whether advertent or inadvertent, this is clearly
problem. I decided that I had not been oversen- the sort of sensitivity that men must be encour-
sitive, instead he had been very gender- aged to show toward women in general and lone
insensitive. At the end of his interview David women interviewers in particular. When I spoke
went to shake my hand (which he had done on to another male informant who lived outside
arrival and departure on the last occasion and on Coventry, he too said that he could come and
arrival this time). He had previously shook pick me up from the station. He said that he
hands for a usual amount of time, but this time would take me to his house. He added that his
- - the end of our last scheduled meeting - - he wife would be there, but I concluded that the
took my hand, did not shake it, but simply held promise of her being in the house when I arrived
it and held it for too long. He was encouraging was not a good enough guarantee of safety. I
me to attend one of his union meetings, to asked if there was a caf6 we could go to instead.
which he offered to transport me (he seemed When I arrived Robert introduced me to his
very keen, therefore, to get me into his car). I 11-year-old daughter. He said that he had rea-
started to pull away after the usual amount of lised that I was worried about going in his car to
time, but he had a tight hold on my hand. When his house, and had brought his daughter along
he finally let go I made for the nearest washba- "to make you feel safer." We went into the caf6
sin. Thus, though the prospect of interviewing a in the station to talk. Though it was quite em-
man in private had been the part of the field- barrassing that my concern had been so trans-
work that had worded me the most at the outset, parent, Robert's action showed considerable
the two occasions where a male interviewee thoughtfulness, for which I thanked him when I
made me feel uncomfortable during the research sent back papers he allowed me to photocopy.
took place in public. Instead of concluding that The location of this interview and the presence
my aversion to interviewing in private was, of an 11-year-old girl did, however, cause me
therefore, misplaced, I would argue that risk can some problems. We had already got some way
instead be seen as potentially present in public into the interview when train announcements
 Interviewing Men 563

started booming round the caf6. Though the interviewer or in a more welcome fashion that,
train announcements could be heard too per- nevertheless, still underlines how dependent a
fectly, somehow the acoustics of the caf6 meant female interviewer's perception of her personal
that the informant and I could hardly hear each safety can be on the actions of her male infor-
other. When we spoke loudly I was conscious of mant. In locating interviewer vulnerability at
people at adjoining tables staring and listening the centre of my analysis, I have not intended to
in. I was lucky that Robert said that he had no be alarmist. Instead, voicing concerns that are
problem in publicly discussing his experiences presently largely unspoken, my intention has
of being accused by male shopfloor colleagues been to create space for woman interviewers to
of child abuse and rape. Having an 11-year-old reflect openly on their experiences of cross-
gift at the interview - - even though Robert said gender research, without feeling inhibited by
that we could talk about his experience in front currently prevailing and constraining interview-
of her because she had heard it already - - made ing advice that prescribes always considering
me wary of asking for examples of the sorts of the informant's wishes before one's own - -
sexual things the men accused Robert of. How- even if this means a woman feeling obliged to
ever, though the daughter's presence hindered talk to an unknown male informant in his bed-
that aspect of the interview, it facilitated a fur- room. While it may be said that my focus on
ther topic of conversation. She was keen - - vulnerability has arisen because my research on
toward the end of the interview - - to take part, workplace harassment "introduce[s] sex into
commenting: "I was affected too." This drew the conversation" (Kitzinger, 1994, p. 135), I
Robert onto telling me more about the effect the argue that it is equally salient to place the po-
harassment had had on his family. I do not tential risks of woman-to-man interviewing in
believe that Jim and Robert engaged in these the context of many women' s well-founded dis-
forms of gender sensitivity primarily in order to trust of men in everyday life. This theme of
make a favourable impression on me, which cross-gender distrust could be usefully further
they hoped would give further weight to their explored by men reflecting upon their experi-
accounts of workplace harassment. Though they ences of researching and being at work with
may, of course, have viewed this as one out- women. For within universities for example,
come of their actions, I think they would have one hears anecdotal evidence that some male
viewed such strategies as unnecessary. For hav- lecturers now feel the need to leave their office
ing previously rehearsed their experiences to doors open when conducting conversations with
sympathetic family, friends, and colleagues, female students. I wonder, therefore, how many
both men had become very confident of the male sociologists (perhaps paralleling some fe-
persuasive nature of their detailed and thought- male colleagues who might avoid interviewing
ful accounts of what had happened to them. men because of personal safety fears) might
have confined their research to people of their
own sex because one-to-one interactions may
CONCLUSION create the conditions for accusations of sexual
harassment? All this said, however, an emphasis
In this paper, I have begun to uncover some of on interviewer vulnerability sits very uneasily
the distinctive character of woman-to-man in- alongside the feminist interviewer's ethical re-
terviewing. I hope to have persuaded readers sponsibilities to interviewees. For while inter-
that the woman-to-man interview is worthy of viewing a man in his own home or a private
much more sustained analysis than it has re- office may place women interviewers in poten-
ceived so far in feminist theorising on the re- tially dangerous situations, conducting inter-
search process. In the course of my analysis views in public places raises difficulties for
here, I have shown how maintaining rapport male informants who may not want their expe-
becomes complicated when sex is the subject of riences to be overheard. In the short term, I
cross-gender discussions, how the means by would argue that women interviewers must ex-
which reciprocity is achieved are altered when ercise the level of caution that makes them feel
the interviewee and interviewer are of different safe - - even when other women and men may
genders and how male informants can seek to view their caution as an overreaction. As a
take control of the dynamics of the interview long-term aim, however, feminists must de-
either in ways that are unwelcome to the female velop sophisticated strategies to recognise both
564 DEBORAH LEE

the safety of interviewers and the vulnerability Gutek, Barbara. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Fran-
of informants. One way in which this might be cisco/London: Jossey-Bass.
Kelly, Liz. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. London: Pol-
achieved could be by a more widespread use of ity.
the two interviewers/one informant model of Kitzinger, Celia. (1994). Anti-lesbian harassment. In Clare
interviewing. This strategy - - whereby one in- Brant & Yun Lee Too (Eds.), Rethinking sexual harass-
terviewer keeps track of the research agenda ment (pp. 125-147) London: Pluto.
whilst the other concentrates on exploring McKee, Lorna, & O'Brien, Margaret. (1983). Interviewing
men: Taking gender seriously. In Eva Gamarnikow,
points that emerge as being of importance to the David Morgan, June Purvis, & Daphne Taylorson.
informant as the account develops - - could be (Eds.), The public and the private (pp. 147-161). Lon-
employed as a personal safety device for inter- don: Heinemann.
viewers. I would suggest that many informants Oakley, Ann. ( 1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction
would not be inhibited by this approach, even in terms. In Helen Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist re-
search (pp. 30--61). London: Routledge.
when they are discussing "sensitive" topics. Padfield, Maureen, & Proctor, Ian. (1996). The effect of
People who responded to my appeals for re- interviewer's gender on the interviewing process: A
search participants said that they did so because comparative enquiry. Sociology, 30, 355-366.
they wanted their experiences to be used to Poyner, Barry, & Warne, Caroline. (1988). Preventing vio-
highlight the forms of injustice they had suf- lence to staff. London: HSE.
Renzetti, Claire, & Lee, Raymond. (Eds.). (1993). Re-
fered. They wanted to be listened to nonjudge- searching sensitive topics. London: Sage.
mentally, without interruption and with interest. Riessman, Catherine Kohler. (1991). When gender is not
There is no reason to suppose that the presence enough: Women interviewing women. In Judith Lorber
of two interviewers would adversely affect the & Susan Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gen-
fulfilment of these expectations. der (pp. 217-236). London: Sage.
Scott, Sue. (1984). The personable and the powerful: Gen-
der and status in sociological research. In Colin Bell &
REFERENCES Helen Roberts (Eds.), Social researching: Politics,
problems, practices (pp. 165-178). London: RKP.
Bergen, Racquel Kennedy. (1993). Interviewing survivors Smart, Carol. (1984). The ties that bind. London: RKP.
of marital rape: Doing feminist research on sensitive Stacey, Judith. (1991 ). Can there be a feminist ethnography?
topics. In Clare Renzetti, & Raymond Lee (Eds.), Re- In Sherna Berger Gluck & Daphne Patai (Eds.), Wom-
searching sensitive topics (pp. 197-211) London: Sage. en's words': The feminist practice of oral history (pp.
Cockburn, Cynthia. (1991). In the way of women. Basing- 111-119). London: Routledge.
stoke: Macmillan. Stanko, Elizabeth. (1994). Dancing with denial: Research-
Finch, Janet. (1984). It's great to have someone to talk to: ing women and questioning men. In Mary Maynard &
The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In Colin June Purvis (Eds.), Researching women's lives from a
Bell & Helen Roberts (Eds.), Social researching (pp. feminist perspective (pp. 93-105). London: Taylor and
70-87) London: RKP. Francis.
Foster, Janet. (1994). The dynamics of gender in ethno- Watson, Helen. (1994). Red herrings and mystifications. In
graphic research: A personal view. Studies in Qualitative Clare Brant & Yun Lee Too (Eds.), Rethinking sexual
Methodology, 4, 81-106. harassment (pp. 65-81) London: Pluto.