Interviews

• Structured Interviews

  They are like questionnaires- both involve asking people a set of prepared questions. In both cases, the questions are usually close-ended with pre-coded answers. The questions are read by the interviewee, and filled out by a trained interviewer.
• Structured Interviews: Response Rate

  Large numbers can be surveyed using structured interviews, which increases the chance of obtaining a representative sample. Though lower numbers than questionnaires, Young and Willmott found that of the 987 people approached, only 54 refused to be interviewed. It could be that people find it harder to turn down a face-to-face request. Though those who are available to be interviewed may be untypical, and produce unrepresentative data which undermines validity.
• Structured Interviews: Reliability

  Structured interviews are reliable as they are standardised and easily replicated. They can ensure the interview is conducted in the same way, with the same questions/wording/order/tone of voice. It then means that the study can be replicated by another researcher, and their results can be compared as the basis to all answers is the same. Further increasing the sample size and representativeness.
• Structured Interviews: Validity

  They are usually close-ended questions which restricts interviewees to selecting one pre-set answer; if none of these answers fits then the data is invalid. Structured Interviews give interviewers very little freedom to explain questions or clarify misunderstandings. People can lie and exaggerate; producing false data. As this is a social interaction, there is always a chance the interaction will influence the answer- for example gender and ethnic differences, or social desirability bias.
• Structured Interviews: Inflexibility

  The researcher has already decided what is important, yet not all will coincide with what the researcher sees as important. Findings then lack validity as they don't reflect the interviewees concerns and priorities. Having questions pre-set means that valuable insights are lost as the interviewer cannot pursue any leads that emerge. They fail to capture the flowing dynamic of social life as they are snapshots of a moment in time- unlike PO.
• Structured Interviews: Feminist Criticisms

  Graham argues that questionnaires and structured interviews are patriarchal as they give a distorted picture of women's experience. As the researcher, not interviewee, is in control and decided the line of questioning which mirrors women's subordination in wider society. Survey methods treat women as isolated individuals, rather than in the context of power relationships that oppress them. Impose researchers categories, harder for them to speak freely and thus conceals the unequal power relationship between the sexes. Advocates for observation.
• Unstructured Interviews

  Where the interviewer has complete freedom to vary the interview; it is more like a guided conversation. They can pursue whatever line of questioning seems appropriate at the time, asking follow-up questions to gain more depth.
• Unstructured Interviews: Rapport and Sensitivity

  Informality allows rapport (relationship of trust and understanding) with interviewee. This is more likely to put them at ease, and encourage them to open up. E.g. Labov found that using a formal interview technique to study the language of Black American children made results appear as though they were tongue-tied and 'linguistically deprived'- however, adopting a more relaxed and informal approach- sitting on the floor with a friend present- brought a completely different response. They opened up, spoke freely and are competent speakers.
• Unstructured Interviews: Exploring Unfamiliar Topics

  They allow researchers to interview prior to forming a hypothesis; the questions are open-ended and exploratory. The interviewer is able to ask as many questions needed to gain their perspective. Some sociologists use them as a starting point to develop their initial ideas about a topic before using more structured methods of investigation.
• Unstructured Interviews: Practical Problems

  Time and Sample-Size: in-depth explorations means the time taken is increased which limits the sample sizes. Reducing representativeness.

  Training: needs to be more thorough as they need to be able to recognise any sociologically important points so they can probe further questioning appropriately; adding to costs.

  Interpersonal Skills: they need to be able to establish rapport to ensure interviewees respond fully and honestly.
• The Interview as a Social Interaction: Interviewer Bias

  The interviewer may ask 'leading' questions where an answer is directed through wording. They can also (un)consciously influence the answer by their facial expressions, body language, or tone of voice.

  Another is over-identifying; Oakley admitted that as a mother it was difficult to separate herself and remain detached and neutral when interviewing women about maternity and childbirth.
• The Interview as a Social Interaction: Artificiality

  Even the most relaxed unstructured interviews still aren't usual conversations. Both parties know it is an interview, in which one 'side' takes the initiative and asks questions. Under these artificial conditions, it can be doubted whether truthful answers can be obtained.
• The Interview as a Social Interaction: Status and Power Inequalities

  Inequalities may affect the interviewee's honesty and willingness to answer. In general, the bigger the status difference, the less valid the data- e.g. Rich shows that when adults interview children, the children's need to please the researcher will affect their answers. Same applies to gender and ethnic differences.
• Improving the Validity of Interviews

  Overcoming the problem of cultural differences is ensuring that the interviewers and interviewees are ethnically and language-matched- e.g. Nazroo's survey of health of Britain's ethnic minorities were carried out in the language of the interviewee's choice. Improving the validity of answers.
• Interviewer as the 'Teacher in Disguise'

  If interviewees have less power than the interviewer, they may see it as beneficial to lie, exaggerate and conceal information- or seek to please when answering questions. This is likely in educational research, especially if interviews are conducted on school sites- Bell found pupils see them as teachers; meaning they may provide untrue but socially acceptable answers- seeing adults as 'knowing better', so may be tempted to alter their language if body language changes- distorting data.
• In Context: Validity

  Using an informal style of interviewing, Bentley began each interview by showing students a 'jokey' image of her messing around with her daughter. During the interview, she maintained a relaxed atmosphere by nodding, smiling and making eye contact. Though this personalised interviewing style can then not be easily replicated and standardised- thus, different interviewers are likely to get different results meaning comparisons cannot be made.
• Group Interviews

  Up to a dozen people being interviewed together. Willis used group interviews as part of his research into the 'lads' and schooling.
• Group Interviews with Pupils

  Pupils and young people are often strongly influenced by peer pressure, which can reduce the validity of the data gathered in a group interview, where individuals may conform to peer expectations rather than express what they truly think. They can reveal interactions between pupils; Willis' study showed that 'lads' reinforced each others opposition to authority.

  Though as they are free-flowing, they cannot be reliable or compared due to a lack of standardisation.
• Group Interviews with Pupils

  Greene and Hogan argue that group interviews are particularly suitable as they create a safe peer environment and reproduce the small group settings pupils are familiar with in classroom work. Peer support helps to reduce the imbalance of power found in one-to-one interviews.
• Improving the Validity of Pupil Interviews

  Greene and Hogan argue researchers should: use open-ended questions, not interrupt the child's response, tolerate long pauses, recognise that children are more suggestible and avoid asking 'leading' questions, and avoid repeating questions which makes them feel their first answer was incorrect. These methods are then more likely to produce valid data when discussing sensitive topics with vulnerable groups.