Interviews

• Interviews are another popular type of research method, often preferred by positivists.
• Positivists vs Interpretivists 


  • Positivists see interviews as revealing the attitudes and behaviour of people in everyday life.
  • Interpretivists claim the interviews are artificial situations and only reveal what the interviewee wants the interviewer to know.
• Interviewer Bias


  • Answers in interviews may be influenced and distorted in some way by the presence, appearance or behaviour of the interviewer.
  • This means that the differences between respondents might be the result of interviewer bias, rather than the differences between people.
• Types of Interview 


  • There are two main types of interview, both with their own strengths and weaknesses:
  • Structured/formal interviews.
  • Unstructured/informal interviews.
• • Structured or formal interviews are based around a structured, pre coded questionnaire known as the ‘interview schedule’.
  • Structured/formal interviews are preferred by positivists.
• Advantages 


  • They have good response rates because interviewers can persuade people to answer questions.
  • They overcome problems with literacy.
  • They are reliable because all respondents answer the same questions and results can be compared with other groups and replicated by other interviewers to check findings.
• Advantages 


  • They are good for obtaining facts, such as age, sex, and occupation.
  • They provide easy classified quantitative data.
  • Interviewer bias is reduced because there is little contact between the interviewer and the interviewee, however, the interviewer is available to clear up any misunderstandings that may arise.
  • There are few ethical problems because people are given a choice and are told what the interview is about.
• Disadvantages


  • They are more time consuming and costly than self-completion questionnaires and interviewers have to be trained and paid.
  • Interpretivists argue that they suffer from the imposition problem due to the use of a structured interview schedule.
  • There is the possibility of interviewer bias.
• • Unstructured interviews resemble a guided conversation.
  • They don’t necessarily need to include questions at all but might include questions that are open-ended.
  • This type of interview is preferred by interpretivists.
  • They might be carried out with groups, including focus groups, who might discuss a particular topic in-depth.
• Advantages 


  • Interpretivists claim that informal interviews offer greater flexibility, providing participants with the opportunity to be more open and say what they really think about an issue.
  • They are more flexible than other methods and the researcher can develop ideas and change direction during the course of the interview if new ideas emerge.
• Advantages

  • Ambiguities and other issues can be clarified easily and the interviewer can probe to uncover nuance.
  • Interviewers can assess the honesty and validity of replies during the course of the interview.
  • Group interviews and focus groups can spark debate and discussion where ideas can yield more in-depth information.
  • They avoid ethical problems, as taking part implies informed consent and interviewees can refuse to answer questions.
• Disadvantages


  • They are time-consuming, costly and (because the data in qualitative) it takes longer to analyse findings.
  • The time/cost problem might mean that fewer interviews can be conducted.
  • Positivists claim they are less reliable because of their unstructured design, making comparisons and replication difficult.
• Disadvantages

  • How successful an interview is, relies partly on how well the interviewer conducts the interview; differences in responses may reflect the characteristics, skills or personal qualities of the interviewer, rather than differences between respondents.
  • Positivists claim that it is difficult to compare responses from different people because they may express themselves in different ways.
• Disadvantages 


  • Group interviews may lead to peer pressure and conformity, by encouraging people to conceal, distort or exaggerate their responses or agreeing with the majority when, in reality, they hold alternative views.