Qualitative Research, Ahead of Print.
Existing work on elite interviewing methods falls short in two ways: first, there is no systematic comparison between the practices of interviewing different elite groups; second, most reflections are confined to Anglo-American contexts. To address these gaps, I reflect on how to tackle variations in elite interviews by analyzing my experience conducting over 150 interviews with a diverse set of elite stakeholders in a Chinese high-tech sector. I aim to make two arguments. First, the elite interviewee’s sphere of influence—national or local—is crucial to shaping interview access and power dynamics. Two distinct reference modes are compared: formal national networks and informal local connections, with university professors and government officials as gatekeepers, respectively. Second, to carve out a space for meaningful engagement with an informant, researchers need to adopt different positioning strategies according to the elite interviewee’s identity: a trustworthy, policy-oriented scholar for political elites; a neutral, non-profit stakeholder for economic elites; and, a perceptive, well-informed sociologist for professional elites.