4 tips on using respondents ‘lies’ in qualitative analysis
"How do you really know if what people tell you is true?" Anthropologists and other researchers are asked this again and again. Either out of curiosity or outright skepticism about the capability of qualitative methods. The answer is that we do not know. In fact, it turns out that people often say things that are not true during an interview.
Here we provide 4 tips on how to methodically and analytically see through respondents 'lies' and thereby create deeper anthropological insights.
1. 'Falsehoods' tells us where something is at stake
What does it mean when people are 'lying' in an interview, and what can we do about it as an interviewer? Initially, it requires that we notice the contradictions. There are often contradictions between what respondents say they do and what they actually do. These contradictions rise to the surface not only when you interview people but also when you observe their behavior during fieldwork.
Next, it can actually be fruitful to see the discrepancies between people's self-representations and their reality. People seldom deliberately lie, but they convey a self-image that is important to them. A self-image that reflects their ideals and norms, but for various reasons is difficult to live up to in everyday life. We saw this in a project that studied alcohol habits – a majority of the respondents started the interview by assuring us that they don’t drink much. This tells us that there is something at stake, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong.
'Falsehoods' do not make the insights from the interview less valid or interesting – on the contrary it often just captures things that are particularly important or sensitive for the respondent. The point is therefore not to design the study with the aim of preventing people from 'lying' – or to catch them in it if they do – but to reflect on what the self-image means and why it is important for them.
2. Participant observation takes us behind the idealised self-presentations
A good example of why people 'lie' when they are interviewed can be found in studies of habits and behavior in relation to food. Food is an extremely sensitive and conflict-ridden area, which is closely linked to human ideals, norms, hopes and concerns. How we eat is often an expression of our identity, and we have many expectations invested in food – both for ourselves and others.
In a study of Danish families' eating habits we interviewed a number of families about shopping, cooking and dinner table habits. Through the interviews we saw a picture reflected of conscious consumers, competent everyday cooks and closely knit families who gathered around the dinner table for dining together and socialising.
However, when we observed the same people in shopping situations and at home around the dinner table, a rather different image took shape. Often people had to compromise on quality when they went shopping, cooking was an evil necessity which had to be completed and the family dinner was a stressful affair with many interruptions.
The observation in the supermarket and at home shed light on many conflicts and tensions, which otherwise were 'airbrushed' out of the story of food and dining. If we had only interviewed these people, and not also observed them, their idealised self-presentations would have gone unchallenged.
3. Questions about specific events provide insight into conflicts and compromises
Examples from the food study say something about why people 'lie' and what that means. When families told those idealised stories of their lives, the intention was not to deceive the interviewer, but rather an expression of their perception of a perfect and desirable life. They were painting the picture of the ideal dinner situation, which probably took place sometimes, but that was far from typical.
That's why it can be problematic to ask 'What foods do you usually buy?' Or 'How are your typical dinners?'. You typically get the stories of those times where everything went perfectly, while the more chaotic examples will be omitted. If, on the other hand, you ask: 'What did you eat last Thursday? Can you tell me how dinner went? ', then you ask into a specific situation, with all its deviations, exceptions and compromises. Or better yet - if you are sitting at the kitchen table, you can see it for yourself.
4. 'Falsehoods' can show us that respondents see things differently than we think
The food world also shows how respondents sometimes say things we think are lies, because their view of the world simply does not fit with the assumptions that we carry with us in the field.
While researching chefs working in catering, we found the chefs were very anxious to emphasise that they would never dream of using semi-finished products in their food. But we observed them using prepared sauces and seasoning in their cooking. When asked about it, they explained that it served as the base of their meals, but that they added several more ingredients later in the process. So it was more about making the final result 'their own'.
So products that were semi processed went from being something that the cooks wrinkled their noses at, to being an acceptable tool in a creative process. As long as the product was part of a longer and more complex cooking process. It was a perception that many chefs shared and which made perfect sense in their conceptual world.
This is why it is fruitless to talk about respondents ‘lying’. It is more interesting to explore the subjective meaning that it adds to our preconceived understanding. Through exploring ‘the lie', we can gain new perspectives on the concepts and assumptions that we believed we shared with our respondents.
From 'lies' to insights - 4 tips
Our 4 key tips to get beyond 'lies' and create deeper, more nuanced insights:
- Dive into the contradictions rather than avoid them – this is often where there is something at stake
- Observe people in their own context, to compare what they say with what they do
- Ask into specific events to get behind front of mind ideals and notions
- Explore 'the lie' to learn new things about the respondent's conceptual world
