Details

Twenty minutes into the transcription, I have four pages. I just realised the answers he gave me do not have the level of detail I am looking for. These answers tell me what RAs are, their concerns, their problems with government. They do not tell me what they do. I have to concentrate on that in the next interview. Perhaps I should take another look at my interview guide.

Order of Interviews

Of course it matters the order of interviews. Given that I don't have full approval yet I figure I'd start with NGOs because they are relatively uncontroversial and I don't expect to get into trouble. Unconsciously perhaps I think they are safe ground because they are familiar. I worked for an NGO after all, and of my three main subjects, I identify with them the most.

I wonder now though whether it would be prudent to interpserse interviews. The next one should be a government official or a recruiter. Ideally of course, but unlikely to happen unless I get IRB approval this week.

First transcription

I timed myself while transcribing. Five minutes of recording = thirteen minutes of transcription. Not bad.

First Interview

Conducted my first interview today. I arrived a little earlier than scheduled but the interviewee was ok with it. It lasted about 1 hour and a half - it was pretty exhausting, and all I did was listen and ask some questions. I think 2 hours is pushing it. I offered a break mid-way, but he declined so we just went on. Next time I'll offer the break at 45 minutes. It will give me some time to go over the notes and think of avenues to pursue. I hardly had time to think about and reflect on what he was saying. I suspect I'll have more questions once I start transcribing. I forgot to bring a name card. I'll make it a practice to ask for referrals. I may have a good lead with an Indonesian research institute.

ETA

I realise when I am scribbling notes, it shouldn't be what is already being said (as I'm already recording it). It should probably be:
1. Some general topics brought up
2. Follow-up questions depending on what is being said

The Science Question

The devil is in the details. Never has this expression been more relevant in my life than now. The IRB is asking another set of questions. There is a dedicated group of people in the university whose job it is to suggest modifications in the conduct of research. The end point of course is to make sure that subject welfare is looked after. The way the discipline is configured today, I doubt many have to go through the IRB stage. My own supervisor worked with documents. Rare is the political scientist - let alone of the IR sort - who works with people. If you include the human element, how can you even talk 'objective' science? The precautions being taken by the IRB presumes that I, the researcher, could not possibly occupy that archimedean point. The way they are asking questions means they expect me  - the researcher - to disturb the environment.

Waiting for IRB Approval

Still waitin for IRB approval. But I am already lining up interviews with NGOs. I figure it should be ok. They're not a crucial component of my data generation.

Chasing Data

I found a new way of looking for recruiters who deploy domestic workers - through JobsDB! Checking now whether this works in the Indonesian version. So far no dice.