Interviews

• Interviews

  An alternative to written questionnaires that is widely used by sociologists to gather data by asking people questions
• Types of interview

  • Structured or formal interviews
  • Unstructured or informal interviews
  • Semi-structured interviews
  • Group interviews
  • Focus groups
• Structured or formal interviews


  Very similar to a questionnaire - the interviewer is given strict instructions on how to ask the questions in a standardised way
• Unstructured or informal interviews


  Like a guided conversation - the interviewer has complete freedom to vary the questions, wording, order etc. from one interview to the next
• Semi-structured interviews


  Have the same set of questions in common, but the interviewer can also probe for more information
• Group interviews


  Interviews with up to a dozen or 50 people being interviewed together
• Focus groups


  A form of group interview in which the researcher asks the group to discuss certain topics and records their views
• Interviews involve a social interaction between the interviewer and interviewee, whereas with written questionnaires the respondent usually answers the questions without the involvement of the researcher
• Strengths of group interviews


  • Participants may feel more comfortable being with others and thus are more likely to open up
  • In a discussion participants often throw ideas around the group stimulating each other's thinking, this produces richer and more reflective data
  • They can be a useful way of generating initial ideas that can be followed up in later research
  • The researcher can combine questioning with the opportunity to observe group dynamics and actions
• Limitations of group interviews


  • One or two individuals may dominate the discussion, inhibiting others from contributing
  • Much depends on the researcher's ability to keep the group focused on the discussion topic
  • Peer group pressure to conform to group norms may lead to participants not saying what they really think
  • Data generated from group interaction is more complex and difficult to analyse
• Results from two unstructured interviews on a given subject may be harder to compare than the results from two structured interviews on that subject
• Structured interviews


  • Like questionnaires, involve asking people a set of prepared questions, usually closed-ended with pre-coded answers
  • The questions are read out and the answers filled in by a trained interviewer rather than by the interviewee
• Practical issues with structured interviews


  • Training interviewers is relatively straightforward and inexpensive
  • Surveys that use structured interviews can cover quite large numbers of people with relatively limited resources
  • Suitable for gathering straightforward factual information
  • Results are easily quantified because they use closed-ended questions with coded answers, making them suitable for hypothesis testing
• Response rate for structured interviews


  • Generally have a higher response rate than questionnaires
  • Response rates can be increased if the interviewer can make several call backs to pursue those who fail to respond initially
  • Those with the time or willingness to be interviewed may be untypical, producing unrepresentative data
• Reliability of structured interviews


  • Seen as reliable because it is easy for the researcher to standardise and control them, ensuring each interview is conducted in precisely the same way
• Validity of structured interviews


  • Critics argue they often produce a false picture of the subjects they are trying to study
  • Closed-ended questions restrict interviewees to choosing from a limited number of pre-set answers
  • Interviewers have very little flexibility to explain questions or clarify misunderstandings
  • People may lie or exaggerate, producing false data
  • The social interaction between interviewer and interviewee can influence the answers given
• Inflexibility of structured interviews


  • The researcher has already decided what is important, which may not accord with what the interviewee thinks is important
  • Fail to capture the flowing, dynamic nature of social life
• Feminist criticisms of structured interviews


  • The researcher, not the female interviewee, is in control of the interview and decides the line of questioning to be followed
  • Treat women as isolated individuals rather than seeing them in the context of the power relationships that oppress them
  • Impose the researcher's categories on women, making it difficult for them to express their experiences of oppression
• Advantages of unstructured interviews


  • Allow the interviewer to develop a rapport with the interviewee, putting them at ease and encouraging them to open up
  • Allow the interviewee more opportunity to speak about those things they think are important
  • The interviewer's probing can help formulate and develop interviewees' thoughts more clearly
• Unstructured interviews are particularly useful when researching sensitive topics
• Unstructured interview


  An interview where the researcher allows the interviewee the opportunity to speak about those things they think are important, in contrast with a structured interview where the researcher decides in advance what questions are worth asking and limits interviewees to a fixed range of possible answers
• Unstructured interviews


  • More likely to produce fresh insights and valid data
  • Interviewer's probing can help formulate and develop interviewees' thoughts more clearly
• Study of claimants' experiences of unemployment


  • Hartley Dean and Peter Taylor-Gooby used unstructured tape-recorded interviews, lasting up to 90 minutes, with 85 claimants
  • Questions were not put in any set order
  • Wording of questions was adapted to fit the circumstances
  • Inappropriate questions were omitted
  • Additional questions or prompts were used at the interviewer's discretion to clarify or develop themes as they emerged
• Unstructured interviews


  Give interviewees the freedom to talk in their own terms about the issues that concern them
• In structured interviews, there is a great danger that the interviewee misunderstands the question, or the interviewer misunderstands the answer
• Unstructured interviews


  • Make it much easier for interviewer and interviewee to check each other's meanings
  • If the interviewee doesn't understand a question, it can be explained
  • If the interviewer is unsure what the interviewee's answer means, follow-up questions can be put to clarify matters
• Unstructured interviews


  • Highly flexible
  • The interviewer is not restricted to a fixed set of questions in advance, but can explore whatever seems interesting or relevant
  • The researcher can formulate new ideas and hypotheses and then put them to the test as they arise during the course of the interview
  • There is no need to go away and draw up a new interview schedule, as there would be if using structured interviews
• Unstructured interviews


  • Useful where the subject is one that we don't yet much about, because they are open-ended and exploratory
  • Can start out knowing nothing and, by asking questions, learn as we go along
  • Can be used as a starting point to develop initial ideas about a topic before going on to use more structured methods of investigation such as questionnaires
• Unstructured interviews take a long time to conduct, often several hours each, which limits the number that can be carried out and means that the researcher will have a relatively small sample compared with the larger numbers who can be studied using structured interviews or questionnaires
• Interviewers for unstructured interviews need to have a background in sociology so they can recognise when the interviewee has made a sociologically important point and so they can probe further with an appropriate line of questioning
• Interviewers for unstructured interviews need good interpersonal skills so they can establish the rapport that is essential if interviewees are to answer fully and honestly
• The smaller numbers involved in unstructured interviews mean it is more likely that the sample interviewed will not be representative, making it harder to make valid generalisations based on the findings
• Unstructured interviews are not reliable because they are not standardised, with each interview being unique and the interviewer free to ask different questions in each case if they feel it is relevant to do so, making it virtually impossible for another researcher to replicate the interviews and check the findings or compare them with their own
• Because unstructured interviews use mainly open-ended questions, the answers cannot be pre-coded, making it very difficult to count up and quantify the numbers of interviewees giving this or that answer, and in turn making unstructured interviews less useful for establishing cause-and-effect relationships and hypothesis testing that positivists prefer
• Unstructured interviews are generally seen as producing valid data, but critics argue that the fact that they involve an interaction between interviewer and interviewee inevitably colours and distorts the information obtained
• Structured interviews are favoured by positivists because they achieve the main positivist goals of reliability, generalisability and representativeness, while unstructured interviews are preferred by interpretivists because they achieve the main interpretivist goal of validity
• Interviews, whether structured or unstructured, involve a social interaction between interviewer and interviewee, and the danger is that the interviewee may be responding not to the questions themselves but to the social situation in which they are asked
• Interviewer bias can occur through leading questions, where the wording tells the interviewee how to answer, or through the interviewer's facial expressions, body language or tone of voice
• Even the most relaxed of unstructured interviews is still an interview and not a normal conversation, and under these artificial conditions, it is sometimes doubtful whether truthful answers can be obtained
• Inequalities between interviewer and interviewee, such as differences in status, gender, or ethnicity, may affect the interviewee's honesty or willingness to answer