Mannesmann study’s fieldwork contradicted its own depth-interview method claims

Evidence

The Mannesmann study stated in its Remarks on Methods' that, through their immediate contact with those questioned, the interviewers acquired a series of general impressions that went beyond the answers themselves. It was difficult to record these impressions and eliminate the subjective interviewer factor at the same time. With an unmistakably Adornoesque idea, it was stated that The interviewer’s full subjective capacity to react is here made into a “research tool” best adapted to the object, which is imponderable in its dynamics and complexity.’ It was a poor match for this when the interviewingthe actual fieldworkwas carried out by fifteen experienced interviewers from the German Institute of Opinion Research (Deutsches Institut für Volksumfragen or DIVO) who only added at the end of the questionnaire sheet their general impressions on the degree of co-operation shown by the person being questioned, on the quality of the contact, the person’s sincerity, how attached he was to the factory, and how much trade union activity he engaged in. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2099

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the earlier pattern where the Institute’s empirical apparatus functioned mainly as a protective screen for theory.