In this paper, I assess the utility of two targeted qualitative interview questions: descriptions of a ‘good farmer’ and a ‘good day’, for eliciting rich textual data. Studies where farmers have been asked to describe or define a good farmer have been utilized across a growing range of international contexts in order to identify farmers’ cultural scripts, symbolic capital and social norms. The constitution of a ‘good day’ is new to rural studies but has been employed academically to assess perceptions of well-being and job satisfaction. I employ document analysis to analyse the multiple uses of the ‘good farmer’ question in the rural studies literature and introduce a contrasting empirical application the ‘good day’ question in a rural case study in the United Kingdom. Findings demonstrate that both interview questions can generate rich textual descriptions of embodied performances. ‘Good farmer’ definitions may also include a moral judgement, whereas the ‘good day’ question specifically yields descriptions of affect. Farmers are reluctant to identify ‘bad farmers’, but asking about a ‘bad day’ can open up discussion of the vulnerabilities of farming life. Both questions are thus suited to more-than-representational research, gaining utility from their congruence between common parlance and academic conceptualization.

中文翻译：

---

两个很好的面试问题：动员“好农民”和“好日子”的概念，以实现超越代表性的研究

在本文中，我评估了两个有针对性的定性访谈问题的效用：对“好农民”和“好日子”的描述，以获取丰富的文本数据。要求农民描述或定义好农民的研究已在越来越多的国际背景下得到利用，以识别农民的文化脚本、符号资本和社会规范。“美好一天”的构成对农村研究来说是新的，但在学术上已被用于评估幸福感和工作满意度。我使用文献分析来分析农村研究文献中“好农民”问题的多种用途，并介绍了英国农村案例研究中“好日子”问题的对比实证应用。调查结果表明，这两个面试问题都可以生成对具体表演的丰富文本描述。“好农民”的定义也可能包括道德判断，而“美好的一天”问题则专门描述情感。农民不愿意识别“坏农民”，但询问“坏日子”可以开启对农业生活脆弱性的讨论。因此，这两个问题都适合于超越代表性的研究，从通用说法和学术概念化之间的一致性中获得效用。但询问“糟糕的一天”可以开启对农业生活脆弱性的讨论。因此，这两个问题都适合于超越代表性的研究，从通用说法和学术概念化之间的一致性中获得效用。但询问“糟糕的一天”可以开启对农业生活脆弱性的讨论。因此，这两个问题都适合于超越代表性的研究，从通用说法和学术概念化之间的一致性中获得效用。