Description: This paper is part of a study of how ethnography is actually conducted. The wider study will eventually influence and provide real examples of practice for a methodological text on the process of doing ethnography. That study will involve interviewing six to eight key ethnographers about the practices they engaged in while researching and writing one of their recent and significant ethnographies within the field of education broadly defined. They, and their ethnographies, will be named in the papers (Walford, 2005). This particular paper will focus on interviewing as one aspect of ethnographic work, while other related papers will focus on interviewing, access, relations in the field and similar topics. Each ethnographer was interviewed in depth about their practices. The research, although small scale, can be expected have considerable influence simply because the sample will be chosen specifically to include those who are seen as being significant ethnographers. To understand more about how these people conduct and use interviews can be expected to enhance future ethnographic studies. The ethnographers included have been chosen because I value their work highly and because they represent some degree of spread of styles and interests. They are: Paul Connolly, Sara Delamont, Bob Jeffrey, Lois Weis, Elisabeth Hsu, and Bradley Levinson. There will be more by the time the paper is given. The list is thus international and also includes those with an anthropological as well as sociological background. There is a strong irony in the way that so much modern qualitative research relies on tape-recorded interviews as a main data source, for qualitative research and, in particular, ethnographic naturalistic research grew in part as in reaction to the positivistic and experimental research that once held sway. Experimental methods were castigated as setting up unreal situations such that the results could not be expected to be valid. Ethnography, on the other hand, was thought to bring greater validity as the everyday activities being investigated would be disturbed as little as possible. Yet, within this ethnography, many researchers (including myself) construct these very strange and artificial situations called >interviews= and we often use the results of these situations as the core of our writingI have written at length about interviews elsewhere (Walford, 2001, ch. 6). It is, by all accounts, an unusual affair in that the socially accepted rules of conversation and reciprocity between people are suspended. One person takes the lead and asks a series of questions of the other. The other, has agreed that this is to be a special form of conversation and is prepared for his or her views to be continuously questioned without the usual ability to be able to return the question. The topics to be covered are under the control of the >interviewer= and the >interviewee= is expected to have opinions or information on each of the questions asked. Moreover, what the interviewee says is taken to have lasting importance - it is recorded for future analysis. This is not a transitory conversation, but one that is invested with significance. Methodology: The paper will based on extended interviews with a small number of ethnographers of education. As the questions asked about the practice and use of interviewing will be linked to previous published research by these ethnographers, these written ethnographies will also be part of the data. The interviews have been transcribed and detailed analysis conducted. Conclusions: My expectation is that diversity will be a key feature of the conduct and use of interviews by these ethnographers. I expect that considerable insights will be gained about the research process.