# Interview Power Knowledge China

> Analyze in-depth interviewing in Chinese-language education and social research through He Xiaoxing's power-knowledge critique. Use when examining speech-writing separation, transcription loss, indigenous concepts, disciplinary discourse, cultural hegemony, or reflexivity; do not treat interview technique as culturally neutral or the essay's provocation as universal empirical proof.

- Skill: `ilog3/interview-power-knowledge-china` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 10 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ilog3/interview-power-knowledge-china`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ilog3/interview-power-knowledge-china/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: ilog3 (https://skillmd.com/u/ilog3)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ilog3/interview-power-knowledge-china

---


# 深度访谈的中国经验：权力／知识分析

Use this skill to question what an interview method makes audible, writable, thinkable, and authoritative in a Chinese-language research setting.

## Route the request

- 言文分离、表意与表音、“甲板／加班”问题：[chapters/01-speech-writing-separation.md](chapters/01-speech-writing-separation.md)
- “深度”作为意义探究、生活世界与顿悟：[chapters/02-depth-as-meaning-inquiry.md](chapters/02-depth-as-meaning-inquiry.md)
- 转录损失、专有名称、本土概念与记忆：[chapters/03-local-concepts-and-transcription.md](chapters/03-local-concepts-and-transcription.md)
- 方法作为话语、学科／规训与权力—知识：[chapters/04-power-knowledge-and-discipline.md](chapters/04-power-knowledge-and-discipline.md)
- 反身性批判与研究设计改进：[chapters/05-reflexive-critique.md](chapters/05-reflexive-critique.md)
- 术语、分析模板与速查：[glossary.md](glossary.md)、[patterns.md](patterns.md)、[cheatsheet.md](cheatsheet.md)

## Core model

Treat an interview record as a transformation, not a transparent copy:

`lived event → spoken interaction → recording → transcription → coding → disciplinary claim`

At every transition ask:

1. What was retained, normalized, or discarded?
2. Which medium—sound, writing, gesture, memory—was privileged?
3. Which concepts became legitimate and which became unsayable?
4. Who gained the authority to define the participant's world?

## Working procedure

1. Identify the researcher's declared meaning of “depth”: semi-structured detail, lived-world understanding, theoretical interpretation, or something else.
2. Select one concrete interview episode and preserve its context, pauses, pronunciation, gesture, and naming practices before abstracting it.
3. Compare at least two representations: audio/video or field notes, close transcript, normalized transcript, analytic paraphrase.
4. Mark every transformation that improves readability but may erase social meaning.
5. Test whether a “local concept” is semantic, phonetic, indexical, relational, or tied to a unique person/place.
6. Analyze the imported method as a historically situated discourse: what does it authorize as valid evidence and expertise?
7. Turn critique back on the analyst's own vocabulary, categories, institution, and preferred medium.
8. Produce a revised evidence protocol and state what remains inaccessible.

## Decision rules

- Do not equate verbatim-looking Chinese text with lossless speech reproduction.
- Do not assume that more recording technology removes the cultural and epistemic problem.
- Preserve original pronunciation for names and local expressions when it carries identity or memory, while also providing a readable gloss.
- Treat silence, rhythm, hesitation, code-switching, gesture, and interaction as potential evidence, not automatic evidence.
- Do not romanticize dialect or infer a whole way of life from vocal features without corroboration.
- Do not reject interviewing merely because it is historically situated; disclose and redesign its conditions of use.
- Treat “Western” and “Chinese” as analytic contrasts in the essay, not internally uniform civilizations.
- State clearly when an interpretation is a theoretical provocation rather than an empirically demonstrated causal claim.

## Preferred output

Return: **research question → interview assumption → representation chain → lost/privileged meanings → power-knowledge effect → reflexive check → revised protocol → remaining uncertainty**.