Interviewing the Elite — Interviewing Experts: Is There a Difference?

Abstract

A comparison of the Anglo-American methodological debate in the social sciences with its counterpart in the German-speaking world reveals that scientists in the latter have now regarded expert interviews as a distinct interview form for some years (Flick and others, 2003, Bogner and others, 2005, Gläser and Laudel, 2004, Mieg and Näf, 2006). With few exceptions, for example (Brandl and Klinger, 2006), the notion of the elite interview is rarely, if ever, encountered in German-speaking countries. Yet the reverse is the case in the Anglo-American and (given the dominance of English as the language of scientific publication) international social sciences debate see, for example (Gubrium and Holstein, 2002 or Denzin and Lincoln, 2000), where the concept of the expert interview appears largely unknown. However, closer study reveals that in many respects the content of publications on these two interview forms does not really differ fundamentally. In fact, quite the opposite applies: central themes in both methodological traditions include the problems of gaining access to the elite or to experts (particularly at a high level) as well as the specifics of interaction and the actual interview process itself. Although not identical, even the respective target group definitions (experts and the elite) for such interviews overlap. The focus of interest in both generally lies on the professional (functional) elite and on professional experts. Indeed, it would seem that the differences between interviews with the elite and interviews with experts lie primarily in differing social and political sciences research traditions and interests.