Framing Questions for Interviews
The fourteenth century is not one which the English celebrate with any great pride - if, indeed, at all. The population had been halved by the Black Death, two kings wrested from their throne, and English dreams of empire had crumbled in the attrition of the hundred years war. Not quite the end of the world, but you could definitely see it from there.
In the candlelit Kentish dark, and with his quill on vellum, the then Clerk of Romney wrote up his Register. Daniel Rough added a short epigram which may well have been his critique on the times in which he lived:
Some six hundred years later, the relationship with France was healing, the British Empire far exceeded expectations, and a journalist called Rudyard Kipling had a story published in a womens' magazine. The Elephant's Child was the tale of an oft beaten individual with a 'satiable curiosity. It explored how prosecuting his inquiry into crocodillian nutrition, with an avuncular snake, resulted in a new and longer nose for pachyderms.
At the end, of what became a Just So story, Kipling was moved to add an epigramatic poem which may, or may not, have been inspired by Rough's excellent Latin admonishment penned more than half a millennium earlier. In any case, the sense of the piece was taken to heart by journalists; ever since they are like to refer to Kipling's poem, six honest serving men, and ask 'What and Where and When And How and Why and Who' to teach them all they know.
A century ticked exponentially by, adding more stories to the historical archive. Another century about which we humans have mixed feelings. Technically, it was great but we had some spectacular issues getting along with one another. We also worked hard on story, took film to the stars, and invented several media to which we are now addicted.
Story is probably the oldest human cultural artefact - yet it is rare to find a single definition or understanding of it - even amongst its most celebrated practitioners. Flannery O'Connor, an often quoted writer, once remarked:
Kipling's Six Honest Serving Men, or if you prefer the six latin questions, served us well, they're good but, for reasons I'll explain, they're incomplete. In the 1980s, two writers with ambitions to create Hollywood screenplays set out to understand the concept of story in a new way, a scientific way.
The upshot of Melanie Ann Phillips' and Chris Huntley's work is a 'scientific' theory of story. Dramatica Theory makes useful predictions rather than admonishments. I don't propose to attempt an explanation as it is very deep, would take a long time, and I don't understand it well enough. But I can explain some basics which I use on a daily basis.
So where do stories happen? I am aware of two things: the myself and, beyond that, something I choose to call the Universe. In both places situations and activities are found:
A situation in me is a state of mind, a prejudice or an attitude
An activity in me is a mental activity is a process of mind, a manipulation or way of thinking.
A situation in the Universe might be a depression
An activity in the Universe might be a supernova.
Thus there are four useful places to consider where the workings of story can be found. And when you think about it, complete stories explore all four.
In the case of journalism, we are dealing aspirationally with what we like to call the real world; the world of truth and fact. A major process of journalism is to ask questions, so what questions would we ask about each of those four places? A situation in the Universe would inspire a question about its nature while an activity or process would get us wondering how it works. In our minds, a situation or state of mind concerns impact or what it means while a process of mind gets us wondering about importance.
We have developed interviews within four categories of questions: what/where is it? - how does it work? - what does it mean? - why is it important? When answered in relevant proportion they give, what feels like, a complete insight into something.
Going back to Kipling and Rough it is interesting to see how these two sets of questions compare.
What, Where, When and Who are all questions about a situation in the Universe.How is about activity in the Universe. That leaves two areas of story formally unaccounted for. Watch or read the news and you'll notice that they often get in when the interview isn't of the banal "What does it feel like...?" type.
Why is an interesting question, to which there is generally no answer. For most of us, it goes like this:
Why do do I have to go to bed? Because you need your sleep! Why do I need my sleep? You'll be tired at school tomorrow! Why do I have to go to school?...
The most useful discourse I can find on the question 'why' was written, nearly two and a half millennia ago, by Aristotle. He argued that there are four causes for anything, and they map rather well to the questions about the four locations in which stories tend to happen:
Material Cause concerns substance, what it's made of and the subject of the change. This seems to map well to a situation in the Universe, a what/where is it question.
Effective/Efficient Cause is about process. This is an activity in the Universe. A how does it work sort of question.
Final Cause is about the purpose or required impact. This is the domain of state of mind, a what does it mean question.
Formal Cause is concerns the plan. It's a reasoned design and therefore sits best in the area of mental process, a why it's important question.
Why does a house exist?
There is no single story to tell about something. That flower show could be the backdrop to a new relationship, a scientific breakthrough, an act of espionage, a murder or deep political corruption. It could be the truth or it could be a fiction. The rules of story don't differentiate, they just require that a story be coherent with the rules of its particular world.
I used this technique to question Nick Fraser, Editor of the BBC's Storyville documentary strand. One benefit to package turnaround is that editing is minimal.
Finally, what I have described is fine if the interviewee is willing, reasonable and has nothing to hide. Other situations may arise where answers are incomplete, evasive, or an attempt to mislead. In these cases use the technique devised by Socrates and confront rhetoric with researched facts. Socratic Questioning is easy to research online.
In the candlelit Kentish dark, and with his quill on vellum, the then Clerk of Romney wrote up his Register. Daniel Rough added a short epigram which may well have been his critique on the times in which he lived:
Si sapiens fore vis sex servus qui tibi mando
Quid dicas et ubi, de quo, cur, quomodo, quando.
If you wish to be wise I commend to you six servants
Ask what, where, about what, why, how, when.
Quid dicas et ubi, de quo, cur, quomodo, quando.
If you wish to be wise I commend to you six servants
Ask what, where, about what, why, how, when.
Some six hundred years later, the relationship with France was healing, the British Empire far exceeded expectations, and a journalist called Rudyard Kipling had a story published in a womens' magazine. The Elephant's Child was the tale of an oft beaten individual with a 'satiable curiosity. It explored how prosecuting his inquiry into crocodillian nutrition, with an avuncular snake, resulted in a new and longer nose for pachyderms.
At the end, of what became a Just So story, Kipling was moved to add an epigramatic poem which may, or may not, have been inspired by Rough's excellent Latin admonishment penned more than half a millennium earlier. In any case, the sense of the piece was taken to heart by journalists; ever since they are like to refer to Kipling's poem, six honest serving men, and ask 'What and Where and When And How and Why and Who' to teach them all they know.
A century ticked exponentially by, adding more stories to the historical archive. Another century about which we humans have mixed feelings. Technically, it was great but we had some spectacular issues getting along with one another. We also worked hard on story, took film to the stars, and invented several media to which we are now addicted.Story is probably the oldest human cultural artefact - yet it is rare to find a single definition or understanding of it - even amongst its most celebrated practitioners. Flannery O'Connor, an often quoted writer, once remarked:
"I find that most people know what a story is until they sit down to write one."
Kipling's Six Honest Serving Men, or if you prefer the six latin questions, served us well, they're good but, for reasons I'll explain, they're incomplete. In the 1980s, two writers with ambitions to create Hollywood screenplays set out to understand the concept of story in a new way, a scientific way.
The upshot of Melanie Ann Phillips' and Chris Huntley's work is a 'scientific' theory of story. Dramatica Theory makes useful predictions rather than admonishments. I don't propose to attempt an explanation as it is very deep, would take a long time, and I don't understand it well enough. But I can explain some basics which I use on a daily basis.
So where do stories happen? I am aware of two things: the myself and, beyond that, something I choose to call the Universe. In both places situations and activities are found:
A situation in me is a state of mind, a prejudice or an attitude
An activity in me is a mental activity is a process of mind, a manipulation or way of thinking.
A situation in the Universe might be a depression
An activity in the Universe might be a supernova.
Thus there are four useful places to consider where the workings of story can be found. And when you think about it, complete stories explore all four.
In the case of journalism, we are dealing aspirationally with what we like to call the real world; the world of truth and fact. A major process of journalism is to ask questions, so what questions would we ask about each of those four places? A situation in the Universe would inspire a question about its nature while an activity or process would get us wondering how it works. In our minds, a situation or state of mind concerns impact or what it means while a process of mind gets us wondering about importance.
We have developed interviews within four categories of questions: what/where is it? - how does it work? - what does it mean? - why is it important? When answered in relevant proportion they give, what feels like, a complete insight into something.
Going back to Kipling and Rough it is interesting to see how these two sets of questions compare.
What, Where, When and Who are all questions about a situation in the Universe.How is about activity in the Universe. That leaves two areas of story formally unaccounted for. Watch or read the news and you'll notice that they often get in when the interview isn't of the banal "What does it feel like...?" type.
Why is an interesting question, to which there is generally no answer. For most of us, it goes like this:
Why do do I have to go to bed? Because you need your sleep! Why do I need my sleep? You'll be tired at school tomorrow! Why do I have to go to school?...
The most useful discourse I can find on the question 'why' was written, nearly two and a half millennia ago, by Aristotle. He argued that there are four causes for anything, and they map rather well to the questions about the four locations in which stories tend to happen:
Material Cause concerns substance, what it's made of and the subject of the change. This seems to map well to a situation in the Universe, a what/where is it question.
Effective/Efficient Cause is about process. This is an activity in the Universe. A how does it work sort of question.
Final Cause is about the purpose or required impact. This is the domain of state of mind, a what does it mean question.
Formal Cause is concerns the plan. It's a reasoned design and therefore sits best in the area of mental process, a why it's important question.
Why does a house exist?
A house, made of brick, cement, wood and plaster...The way to arrive at the most appropriate four questions for an interview is to frame them during research. First decide the dominant domain. It has to be an situation or activity in the mind or in the Universe. Coverage of a flower show is likely to be about the blooms so clearly this is a situation and you'll concentrate on the what/where questions. The others are needed too. The successful process for growing a winning plant, the impact of that success - far better than "how does it feel?" and what mental process is involved fill out the interview.
...by the skills of trained craftsmen...
... is a dwelling place...
... that protects its occupants!
There is no single story to tell about something. That flower show could be the backdrop to a new relationship, a scientific breakthrough, an act of espionage, a murder or deep political corruption. It could be the truth or it could be a fiction. The rules of story don't differentiate, they just require that a story be coherent with the rules of its particular world.
I used this technique to question Nick Fraser, Editor of the BBC's Storyville documentary strand. One benefit to package turnaround is that editing is minimal.
Finally, what I have described is fine if the interviewee is willing, reasonable and has nothing to hide. Other situations may arise where answers are incomplete, evasive, or an attempt to mislead. In these cases use the technique devised by Socrates and confront rhetoric with researched facts. Socratic Questioning is easy to research online.
Comments