Expert interview was another semi-structured interview method used for the pre-study field work apart from BNI. The method has become increasingly popular as a social science research method (Littig and Pöchhaker 2014) and useful for investigation at an exploratory phase (Bogner et.al 2009). Since the method is used for exploratory purposes, the researcher faced a dilemma while defining and selecting the framework for the term ‘expert’, as what kind of expertise and criterion for expertise were not clear to the researcher. The dilemma was solved during the pre-study field work and the researcher defined ‘experts’ from the pre-study experience.
Though there is a lack of a clear-cut definition for the term ‘expert’ or ‘elite’ in the discourse and its researcher who defines expert and select the criterion for definition, as Dexter (1970) said “its researcher’s interpretation on the basis of which the term ‘expert’ is defined (P 19)”. Past literature suggests that various social scientists gave a broad understanding for the term expert (Harvey 2011) with specific character. The term elite is a relational term and the researcher ascribed expert on the basis of ‘training’ such as physicians, lawyers and architects.
However, such training is not limited to just an institutional setting. As put forth by Gläaser
and Laudel (2009, P 118)51 “Experts are people who are set apart from other actors in the social setting under investigation by their specific knowledge and skills. Such superior knowledge is produced by designated process of learning and training (For example vocational training)”. This implies that an expert is a person who is trained- either a learned person who is a trained expert in an institutional setting with considerable experience or has gathered knowledge by learning in a social setting with considerable experience. The rationale for the definition is not only to include NGO workers who have academic degrees in social work but also to include NGO workers who learned by gaining experience while working in the concerned field.
The EI method is used along with BNI to explore the phenomenon which is poorly understood or to gain a sense of orientation in the new field (Littig and Pöchhacker 2014). The subjective knowledge of experts or elites is used for knowledge production for gaining new insight on the complex phenomenon within the short time span (Bogner 2009, P. 2). As discussed earlier, expert interview method was used to gain a holistic understanding of the complex phenomenon of violence and education. The second reason for using expert interviews was theory generation. As discussed by Bogner and Menz, experts are stores of knowledge which they experienced over a period of time by working in the concerned field.
This theoretically rich knowledge is used to build an interpretative theory (2009, P 48)52. The knowledge experts gained, experienced and analysed is used further to form a dense and rich theory.
The systematic generation of knowledge gathered during field work, aimed to generate insights into field specific methods followed by the experts to empower women. The analysis
51 Jochen Gläser and Grit Laudel, “On interviewing “Good” and “Bad” Experts” in Interviewing Experts, ed.
Alexander Bogner et al., (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009), 117-137.
52 Alexander Bogner and Wolfgang Menz, “The Theory Generating Expert Interview: Epistemological Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction” in Interviewing Experts, ed. Alexander Bogner et al.,(Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009), 43-80.
of genesis of the expert knowledge, obstacles experts faced while making women empower and their analysis on the impact of education on women’s subjugation were used to create a holistic theory. Theory generation using the EI method stratified NGO experts into caste and gender, compared various methods used by them for women empowerment, patterns and forms of violence they deal with and their analysis on new truth prevailing in the society, which are further illustrated by citing examples from BNI and existing literature.
While interviewing experts, the researcher has taken into account their gender identity and their personal experience to understand their standpoint and position on women’s empowerment. Their personal experience of violence which later helped experts in their standpoints, methods, interpretations and perceptions are of great importance to the researcher to understand experts’ development in an institutional framework (Meuser and Nagel, 2009)53. For example, Swanand, who was a man who first uphold patriarchal values and then later an expert working for gender sensitivity with male. This transformation of being a violent man to a person believing and practicing gender equality helped the researcher to understand how he has used his personal experience to develop methods of empowerment to fulfil his aims and objectives.
A total of six expert interviews during the pre-study and twenty- two during the main study were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide (Bogner and Menz 2009)54. The interviews were typically semi-structured, where the researcher asked counter questions to motivate speakers to further analyse the phenomenon under investigation. All six experts have considerable experience in working in the field of women’s empowerment, more specifically they work in the field of adolescent sexual education, against child sexual abuse, intimate
53 Meuser Michael and Ulrike Nagel, “The Expert Interview and Changes in Knowledge Production”, in Interviewing Experts, ed. Alexander Bogner et al.,(Palgrave Macmillan,London, 2009).,17-42.
54 Alexander Bogner and Wolfgang Menz, “The Theory Generating Expert Interview: Epistemological Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction” in Interviewing Experts, ed. Alexander Bogner et al.,(Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009), 43-80.
partner violence and domestic violence, for gender equality, women’s liberation and women’s empowerment. Though the expert interviews were conducted in a semi- structured framework to stimulate the speaker to talk within framework of a specific theme, the researcher maintained an aloofness but an active ear while entering into conversation to get relevant and structured data (Abels and Behrens 2009)55. Maintaining aloofness helped the expert to discuss their experience, views, beliefs and interpretation in depth and provided thick and rich data for the theory generation. The researcher maintained aloofness but was not a passive listener. The researcher played the role of active listener and intermittently asked counter questions to understand the experts’ interpretations and perspectives. She motivated experts to narrate incidents or experiences which have shaped their perceptions and perspectives.
Despite the fact, that expert interview is the most suitable method for exploratory purposes, experts’ knowledge is an interpretative knowledge or reconstruction of social reality (Bogner and Menz 2009)56. Knowing this limitation, the researcher extracted roots of their interpretation by asking them to cite various incidents or rationale for their interpretation. The researcher illustrates the experts’ knowledge with BNI data and previous existing literature to derive a critically analytical theory. The rationale for the illustration with BNI and existing literature to get empirical reality which might have covered by experts to show myths on international platform (Abels and Behrens 2009)57.
The following figure 2 depicts the data collection method used for the pre study field work. The biographical narrative interview which is collected by using two tools, oral interview
55 Gabriele Abels and Maria Behrens, “Interviewing Experts in Political Science: A Reflection on Gender and Policy Effects Based on Secondary Analysis”, in Interviewing Experts, ed. Alexander Bogner et al.,(Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009)., 138-156.
56 Alexander Bogner and Wolfgang Menz, “The Theory Generating Expert Interview: Epistemological Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction” in Interviewing Experts, ed. Alexander Bogner et al.,(Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009), 43-80.
57 Gabriele Abels and Maria Behrens, “Interviewing Experts in Political Science: A Reflection on Gender and Policy Effects Based on Secondary Analysis”, in Interviewing Experts, ed. Alexander Bogner et al.,(Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009)., 138-156.
and written interview. The second method used for data collection was Expert interview for the pre study field work. Six respondents of each method were interviewed. The Biographical narrative interviews were conducted with six women between 25-40 years which were further divided into three educational groups. Six NGO experts were interviewed for the expert interview.
Figure 2: Review of the Pre- study research methodology
1) Questionnaire for expert interview for the pre-study field work:
• Why did you choose this particular field?
• How do you intervene in an issue?
• When a victim or prospective victim complains about violence on her?
• What are the reasons for violence?