تقرير برجراف فقرة برزنتيشن بحث موضوع ملخص جاهز باللغة
الانجليزية انشاء
ـ
موضوع انجليزي عن ابدا موضوع تعبير بالانجليزي قصير كيفية كتابة موضوع تعبير
باللغة الانجليزية توجيهي قواعد كتابة تعبير بالانجليزي طريقة سهلة لكتابة تعبير
بالانجليزي
موضوع
تعبير انجليزي يصلح لكل المواضيع كتابة تعبير بالانجليزي عن نفسك
كيفية
كتابة paragraph باللغة الانجليزية
كتابة تعبير بالانجليزي عن المستقبل وصف
تعبير
انجليزي يصلح لكل المواضيع موضوع انشاء شامل لكل المواضيع موضوع تعبير عربي يصلح
لجميع المواضيع موضوع تعبير انجليزي جاهز برجراف ينفع لاى موضوع
صعوبة
المقابلة الشخصية بالانجليزي
التعريف
بالنفس في المقابلة الشخصية بالانجليزي
نموذج
مقابلة شخصية باللغة الانجليزية
اسئلة
واجوبة مقابلة شخصية بالانجليزي
اسئلة
المقابلة الشخصية بالانجليزي للمعلمين
نموذج
مقابلة بالانجليزي
مقابله
بالانجليزي قصيره
اسئلة
الانترفيو باللغة الانجليزية واجاباتها
اسئلة
الانترفيو واجاباتها النموذجية بالانجليزي
The difficulties of the interview
An essential tool of social psychology, the interview carries with
it all the difficulty of the truth in human relationships; it has aroused, and
will still arouse, a gigantic critical and methodological work, be it the
questionnaire interview or the non-directive interview. I will not discuss here
the problems of choice of categories, coding, but essentially questions about
the structure of the interview, as an interpersonal relationship. The essential
problem is that of the validity of the interview, that is to say its adequacy
in relation to the reality that we tried to know. The operational minimum of
validity is the fidelity, which is verified by the concordance of the results
obtained by different investigators.
The interview is obviously based on the most dubious and richest
source of all, speech. It constantly risks concealment or fabulation.
The closed question contains an intimidating alternative, imposes a
schema, and risks the maximum error, while on another front, that of coding,
interpretation, exploitation, it offers the maximum guarantees. The open
question, the spontaneous answer, bear (and especially for the deep analysis)
in the fabulation, a truthful meaning, a significant richness: but this time
the maximum risk of error lies on the side of the investigator, of his ability
to decipher the interviewee's message, its ability to make a comparison, in short
to turn a raw human document into scientific data.
What appears more and more is that it is absurd to ask closed
questionnaires on problems where the true attitude escapes the clear conscience
of the interviewee, where the answers are commonly justificatory. Similarly,
preformed responses are unable to capture deep motivation in so many areas. So
to the question: "Why are you going to the movies? response patterns such
as: - to entertain me; - to educate me; - to spend an evening - etc. are unable
to grasp the deep motivation and truthful motivation.
In addition, experience has shown that the wording of the question
plays a role in guiding the response. A seemingly innocuous word can change the
answers. It is also known that the order of the questions and the number of
questions influence the answers.
In short, everything in the interview depends on an interviewer /
interviewer interaction, a small closed field where confront, confront or
associate with gigantic social, psychological and emotional forces.
Various disturbing factors may occur in the interviewee:
- As far as the questions of fact are concerned, the answers will
tend to be fabulous or dissimulative with regard to the big taboo regions: sex,
religion, politics. On this last plane, the suspicions will be more or less
great, depending on whether the regime of the country where the questions are
asked is liberal or not, or according to the minority or not, subversive or
not, political opinions of the interviewee.
Out of taboos, considerations of prestige, standing, can skew the
answers.
-
With regard to the questions of opinion and belief, consciousness
weakens all the more as one goes deeper into motivation. This is most often
obscure in the interviewee or it is securely masked by a system of
rationalization. To tell the truth, it is difficult to enter this zone. Asked
about the reason for his opinions, the interviewee only delivers the
rationalization systems that he secretes in response to the investigation.
In an extremely diverse way, according to the social and historical
situation, the psychological determination, the climate and the character of
the interview, the interviewees react to the interview by:
- the inhibition which results in a blocking pure and simple, or by
a leak (answer to side);
- shyness or caution, which leads to polite answers, according to
the pleasure they believe they will provide to the investigator; which result
in the tendency to answer yes rather than no, by the tendency (caution) to opt
for the middle digit when the choice of a percentage is proposed;
- mechanisms of
attention and inattention (in preformed responses, tendency to choose the point
of view of head or that of tail);
- the multiple tendencies to rationalize one's point of view, that
is to say, to give it an apparent justification and legitimacy that masks its
true nature. The rationalizations are "sincere";
- Exhibitionism, which leads very sincerely (it is obviously the
term of sincerity which must be rethought) fabrications and comedies.
- and, of course, the fundamental tendencies to defend one's person
and to compose the characters with regard to another curious person. Among the
disturbing factors that come from the interviewer is its appearance in the eyes
of the interviewee. The interviewee must feel an optimum of distance and
proximity, and also an optimum projection and identification with respect to
the interviewer. The interviewer must correspond to a nice and reassuring
image. Often the interviewer will be better communicator than the interviewer.
There can not be a universal model of investigator, who would be the urban
investigator of modern cities (correct dress, politeness, without excess of
refinement or snobbery). But for this report to be operative, the investigator
must have, first, a strong self-critical control over himself, it has been
found that his opinion, his predictions, unconsciously influenced the responses
to the interview; his attitude during the interview, his reactions, even if not
very perceptible, have an influence; the investigator must also have a deep
interest in communication, for others. It is not enough that he seems friendly,
he must have sympathy.
Finally, we see that the more the person of the interviewee is
important in the interview, and it is always more important when one wants to
go deeper, the interviewer's person is important.
The interviewer must have a rare degree of objectivation and
subjective participation. Which means that the investigator should be a morally
and intellectually superior person, he should be at the height of a secular
confessor role in modern life.
But here we come up against a problem that is currently insoluble
in the system of the human sciences (except in clinical psychology). The
interview is generally a junior livelihood, a back-up job for slightly cultured
women, a step for future researchers. This is the lesser task that team leaders
discharge. The methodological research of the greatest wealth leads us to
privilege the in-depth interview, that is to say an area where the technical
precautions and the methodological rules give way to this human factor which is
related to art, subtlety and sympathy. The human factor, first annulled by the
statistical technical tendencies of the interview, reappears in triumph at the
end of the methodologically critical analysis.
This is because the interview provokes itself (because it is an
intrusion that can appear traumatic, or aggressive to the interested party) a
gigantic defense system. But at the same time, the interview is aimed at a
gigantic need to express oneself.
Rogers' brilliant and childish discovery consists in breaking the
subject's defense system by the need to express the subject himself.
إرسال تعليق