The Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Forms of Interviewing - Assignment Example

Research and Evaluation ASSESSING THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF INTERVIEWING Introduction The interview is an interaction between a participant or group with a researcher who uses a planned set of questions or a questionnaire: for obtaining information from the participants. Interviews are useful tools in research and evaluation, for the purpose of collecting valuable data. Interviews can be of several types, employing different techniques for gathering data (Becchofer & Paterson, 2000: 87). Research can be considered as systematic enquiry. Interviewing is often used in Social Science along with other research methods. It is important that the choice of method should be carefully selected, depending on the research goals. The field of enquiry may vary from areas of broad cultural consensus to people’s more personal understandings, thus necessitating different research designs and interview approaches (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 2). This paper proposes to examine the different forms of interviewing used in sociological research, backed by sociologists’ theories and suggestions; identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different interviewing approaches; express recommendations regarding the most effective method, supported by research results from studies conducted on the interviewing methods. Discussion As research tools, interviews can be conducted by various methods: some may be of a highly structured nature, or of an unstructured type, may be formal or informal, a questionnaire, an outline or interview guide may be utilized, the interview may be a scheduled one or taped for future transcription, and the subjects may be treated as “respondents” or the interaction may be of a more reciprocal kind. All interviews are social encounters based on specific interactional rules. In research design, interviews have inherent features enabling procedure control and outcome comparison (Becchofer & Paterson, 2000: 96). While surveys are generally highly structured, with a precise interview schedule that the researcher has to follow closely, it is observed that qualitative interviews are less structured. Structured interviews produce simple, descriptive information very quickly, such as finding out how many people in a group or community, smoked. Current research conducted by Krajewski et al (2006: 429) represent an important contribution to the knowledge base concerning the “criterion-related and construct validity of situational versus past behaviour interviews in predicting managerial job performance”. In particular, their findings suggest that the situational interview (SI) and past behaviour interview (PBI) may be differentially valid in predicting the performance of managers and that this differential validity may be due to the fact that the two interview types may be assessing different constructs. Unlike quantitative interviews, qualitative interviews reveal information on personal opinions or understandings, and various criteria may be involved in a given situation: such as determining a community’s voting intentions and politics support, based on their needs. Like the survey interviewer, the qualitative interviewer has to be completely familiar with the questions to be asked, so that the interview can proceed smoothly and naturally. The researcher has a general plan of enquiry in the qualitative interview, but not a specific set of questions that have to be asked using standard terminology, or in a particular order (Babbie, 2005: 314). Unstructured interviews are also naturalistic, autobiographical, in-depth, narrative or non-directive. In this approach, the researcher not only decides in general terms about the main themes and topic areas to be explored, but will also be flexible in the use of interview technique used for obtaining information. Interviewees are encouraged to be open and spontaneous and to speak about the issue in question using language and ideas of their own. (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 4-6). The importance of native systems of communication There can not be any accurate standardization of the interview process because intrinsic interviewer characteristics may cause small differences (Becchofer & Paterson, 2000: 87). In Sociological research standard interview techniques and native systems of communication may not be compatible (Briggs, 1986: x). For a high level of validity in social science research, it is vital that sociologists should conduct interviews with a background knowledge about native metacommunication skills, vocabulary and the linguistic range commonly used by them. Social scientists working in organizational or societal settings that are larger in scale, also need to apply the same concepts while interviewing for “jobs, higher education, welfare, healthcare delivery, criminal and legal investigation, and other areas of life” (Briggs, 1986: x). This is because, socioeconomic and ethnic differences and communication problems that are a part of all social interactions, may give rise to errors of interpretation. However, research conducted by Kacmar & Hochwarter (1995: 207) reveals that gender and race factors had no direct impact on interview outcomes, nor any indirect effect through communication patterns. The various forms of interviewing and how they work According to Gold’s theory of continuum (1958: 217), the fieldwork roles of the sociologist can range from a situation of complete observation to one of complete participation at the other end. Gold identifies two intermediate states which he refers to as observer-as-participant and participant-as-observer. Most of the usual types of interviews are examples of the former, and most fieldwork that is carried out by participating in the social situation, but without concealing the observer function from other participants are examples of the latter. In a highly structured interview schedule, with “closed” questions where alternative responses are specified, reliability is likely to be high (Rex, 1974: 85). An informal conversational interview is characterized by questions arising from the immediate context: being asked in the natural course of things; without a predetermined topic for the interview, or planned set of questions. In the interview guide approach, the topics and issues to be covered are specified in advance in outline form. The researcher plans the sequence and treatment of the questions in the course of the interview. In standardized open-ended interviews the exact wordings and sequence of the questions are decided in advance, forming a standardized questionnaire. All the interviewees are asked the same basic set of questions in the same order. In closed quantitative interviews, questions and response categories are determined in advance. The responses are fixed, presented in a multiple-choice format (Cohen & Manion, 1994: 271). In a “face-to-face” survey research interview, the interaction is considered as a conversation with a purpose, between two unacquainted persons: the interviewer and the respondent. Here the role of the interviewer is considered to be more important. While aiming for neutrality and objectivity, the interviewer facilitates responses that the respondent is primed to give. In this method, standardization is the key (Gubrium & Holstein, 2001: 57). The telephone interview is replacing the questionnaire sent to a large number of respondents by post. In both face-to-face as well as the telephone interview, the researcher uses a standardized interview schedule or scaling instrument to guide the interview. The questions on these documents are either read out or shown to the respondent. Scientific rigour is thus demonstrated by the use of this positivistic approach, bias is reduced and replication of the method is ensured. (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 90). Mail research is a form of interviewing approach by which the questionnaires are sent to the target group of respondents, for their feedback. The method relies on the questionnaires being completed and returned to the researcher for his evaluation. The technique of the researcher using a questionnaire can be placed at the observation end of the continuum. The questionnaire is sent out to respondents through the post or in a similar way (Scott, 1961: 143). While moving across Gold’s continuum, it is seen that with given resources the sociologist would be able to contact fewer people, but it would be possible to obtain richer and deeper data from them, the degree of involvement being higher, although analysis of the data may prove to be more difficult (Rex, 1974: 85). Various forms of the interview technique are at different places on Gold’s continuum. One variation is the use of repeated interviews to produce a panel study or to get greater depth. Also, interviews themselves vary, and can be placed at different points on a similar continuum. At one end are the very formalized interviews in which the schedule is specified completely, the order and form of questions is fixed, and very often the alternative responses are specified. This does not allow the interviewer to follow up interesting ideas and completely marks out the situation for the respondent, though this may be appropriate for some studies. Through the range of Gold’s continuum, each of these restrictions is relaxed, varying forms of questions are used, until at the other end of the continuum is the entirely unstructured interview. There are also a number of specific forms such as the group interview, and the focused interview in which the respondents are known to be involved in some situation, and questions are designed around a previous analysis of that particular situation through appropriate technique (Rex, 1974: 86). A group interview or joint interview is conducted with several of the respondents being interviewed by the researcher. Here the opinions of all the interviewees is taken into consideration, and various perspectives on the same phenomena are thus obtained. The group interview is used more in qualitative than in structured surveys. In many cases, the joint interview is used as part of a triangulated study involving separate conversations with the individuals either before or after the joint interview, and with interviews repeated over a long period of time (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 75). A focus group is a selection of people who are invited to respond to the researcher’s questions with regard to any specific topic selected by him: findings from earlier studies, policy documents, particular concerns or hypotheses. The group may be a cross-section of the population, or they may have a common feature such as a group comprising of retired women. Focus groups originally were used in market research, for developing advertising and sales. Since they complement surveys, a focus group can be convened for discussing questions for a survey. They are widely used to find out why people feel in a particular way about something, or the decision-making steps taken by them (Bernard, 2006: 233). The strengths and weaknesses of each interview method Like other methods of observation in social science research, surveys have inherent strengths and weaknesses. In order to decide on the survey format for one’s research goals, it is essential that the strengths and weaknesses should be determined. Surveys are particularly useful when the characteristics of large populations are studied. A probability sample should be carefully selelcted in combination with a standardized questionnaire. This would enable refined descriptive assertions about a large population such as a student body, a city, or a nation. With the help of surveys, unemployment rates, voting intentions and other similar information can be determined with uncanny accuracy. No other method of observation can provide this general capability, though examining original documents of marriage, birth and death records can provide equal accuracy for a few topics (Rubin, A. & Babbin, E., 2005: 301). Surveys, especially the self-administered variety make very large samples possible, such as those of 2000 people. A large number of cases is required for descriptive as well as explanatory studies. Because of the large sample size, the findings of surveys are more generalizable than the findings of experiments. Experiments in sociology are unable to obtain probability samples. This advantage of generalizability is countered by the limited ability of surveys to show the cause of the findings. For example, a survey of the moods of elderly people can produce general information on whether elderly people with pets have better moods than those without pets. However, it would remain unclear whether having pets caused their moods to improve, or whether their being less depressed in the first place, led them to get pets. The survey also makes it possible to analyse multiple variables simultaneously, though the cause of the results cannot be gauged. Knowledge of the weaknesses of survey research can help to resolve them in some cases. In others, it may be safest to use a combination of appropriate techniques along with interviewing, in order to obtain reliable and valid results. The advantages of the informal conversational interview are that the interview can be matched to individuals and circumstances. The interviews are built on observations, and there is increased salience and relevance of questions. The disadvantages are the difficulty in data organization and analysis, the method is less systematic and comprehensive since different information are collected from different people with the help of different questions. In the interview guide approach, the advantages are that the outline increases the comprehensiveness of the data and makes data collection quite systematic for each respondent. Logical gaps in data can be anticipated and closed. The interviews are conversational and situational (Cohen & Manion, 1994: 271). The narrative method of interviewing involves the researcher’s listening skills and interpretive abilities to construct coherent life stories, as well as the story-telling abilities of the respondent. In telling a story, the narrator clarifies the relevance of his account. In social science the value of narrations is considered important, since they are considered to be rich in references to concrete events in place and time, and are useful for in-depth interviewing. The disadvantage of the narrative method is that it can be subjective, and influenced by the respondent’s personal views or experiences (Elliott, 2005: 21). In the standardized open-ended interviews, respondents answer the same questions, thereby increasing the comparability of responses, the data are complete for each person on the topics addressed in the interview. This method reduces interviewer bias when several interviewers are used; permits the decision makers to see and review the instrumentation used in the evaluation. Facilitates organization and analysis of the data (Cohen & Manion, 1994: 271). In a highly structured research interview with “closed questions” giving a set of alternatives to choose from, though the reliability is high, loss of validity due to inadequate understanding of the different variables is one of the disadvantages that can occur in this method (Rex, 1974: 85). One advantage of using closed questions is that the researcher can use pre-coded answer blocks, and transfer responses into their coded form during the interview itself. In the closed quantitative interviews, many short questions can be asked in a short time, data analysis is simple, and responses can be directly compared and easily aggregated (Cohen & Manion, 1994: 271). Self-administered questionnaires are generally cheaper and quicker than face to face interview surveys. Further, a self-administered mail format for conducting a national survey costs only as much as a local one of the same sample size. In contrast, a national interview survey, either face-to-face or by telephone would cost far more than a local one (Rubin & Babbie, 2005: 301). Face-to-face interviews in comparison to telephone interviews offer more flexibility in terms of question content and target population, tend to obtain higher response rates, are more suitable for long interviews with complex questions, permit the use of visual aids in presenting questions and response options, and enable the interviewer to unobtrusively observe the respondents and their surroundings (Gubrium & Holstein, 2001: 62).. On a comparative basis, telephone interviews are cheaper, easier to conduct, require a shorter data collection period, and permit greater control over interviewer training, supervision and data collection quality (Gubrium & Holstein, 2001: 62). It is possible to target specific groups of respondents. Interviewer reliabilty is high since a supervisor can monitor calls and spot cases where the interviewer diverges from the script. The researcher can quickly see how the work is progressing, by studying the completed response forms as they are being completed by the interviewers. Also, computer assisted telephone interviewing is a powerful way of generating random samples (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 81). The main disadvantages of the telephone interview is that respondents would not be able to spend long durations for answering the questions and “closed questions” are considered more suitable resulting in simpler and shorter answers. Moreover, the respondent may be distracted by some other urgent work. Phone surveys take more interview time than do questionnaires, involve phoning outside of normal working hours, and may require repeated attempts to contact the right person. They require a lot of concentration and energy, interviewer training is necessary, and interviewer supervision may be required. Each call may be more expensive than the cost of sending out each questionnaire (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 81). On the other hand, Rubin & Babbie (2005: 301) assert that telephone surveys have the advantages of time and money as compared to those conducted “face-to-face”, since they are cheaper and can be launched easily. Also, researchers are safer when interviewing people in high crime areas, and the impact of the interviewer on the responses is lessened when they cannot be seen by the respondents. The chief advantage of the mail survey is that a large number of respondents can be contacted at relatively lower cost. Mail surveys typically require a small staff. One person can conduct a reasonable mail survey alone, although it is not easy as the work involved can be extensive. Respondents may not be willing to report controversial or deviant attitudes in interviews, but willingly give information in an anonymoue self-adminstered questionnaire (Rubin & Babbie, 2005: 301). Some disadvantages of this technique are that: only a fraction of the respondents actually complete the questionnaire and return the same by post to the researcher. Also, incomplete data may be given. Getting copies of the questionnaire made, and preparing them for sending by post may prove to be more expensive than the phone interview (Scott, 1961: 143). Online surveys have many of the strengths and weaknesses of the mail survey. With further development of available software, they will become substantially cheaper. One important disadvantage of online surveys is that it is difficult to ensure that the respondents would be representative of the general population (Rubin & Babbie, 2005: 302). Joint interviews have various advantages as well as disadvantages. Some of the advantages are that: an atmosphere of rapport and confidence are established more easily. The particular forms of information, knowledge or view points obtained from the group are likely to corroborate and supplement each other, but at the same time may contain points of divergence. If only one member is interviewed, any inconsistencies between different people’s perspectives are likely to be missed. The information that is obtained from joint interviews may be more complete as interviewees fill in each other’s gaps and memory lapses. The data may be more reliable because any bias in one account may be countered by an opposing viewpoint in another’s account. Also, researchers may gain insights into how the group members interact with each other, and the nature of the relationships between them, such as in a family group or a couple from whom data is being sought (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 76). This is supported by Valentine (1999: 68), who states that one strength of joint interviewing is that “a process of negotiation and mediation takes place between couples in the production of a single collaborative account for the interviewer, which can provide material or insights into the dynamics of the household that would be difficult to identify in a one-to-one interview”. The disadvantages of group interviews are: One informant may be more dominating in expressing their opinion and there is the risk of stirring up antagonisms and conflicts of interests. If the research topic is of a sensitive nature, some members of the group may not be willing to disclose honest information, and may give a more socially acceptable response. Partners or group may concur to jointly withhold information from the interviewer. Also, interviewees may not concentrate as well when more people are present (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 76). Focus group interviews are very useful for some purposes. The technique is a low-cost way of getting the range of informants’ perspectives, and of obtaining information on who holds the information. As long as the results from these groups are treated as material for thought, reflection and further investigation, they can be of great value, and are also relatively inexpensive. They complement, pilot and refine research instruments. Some disadvantages are that groups can be harder to manage than individuals, the discussion may become centred around a single point, and other issues may get only brief attention. If participants of the group are paid for their views, the results would not prove anything. The generalizability would be quite low since the number involved would be small. Problems due to group dynamics such as the dominant group members stressing their points, can be possible (Arksey & Knight, 1999: 77). Thus, it is clear that all the interviewing approaches have their own inherent strengths and weaknesses, and each has its unique place in social science research. Recommendations for most effective interviewing method, and conclusion It is evident that there is no best method for collecting data through interviewing. “There is not even a best method for a particular problem or any problem”, states Rex (1974: 86). All the different approaches of interviewing are seen to have particular strengths and weaknesses. The topic, aim and purpose of the research study and the resources available to the researcher determine the appropriate interviewing approach that is chosen. Resources include material resources, time available, researcher’s skills, and his knowledge about the problem that is being studied. Also the extent of the researcher’s enthusiasm and energy for conducting the study can impact the size of the sample selected as well as the interview method. Olson & Peytchev (2007: 273) add that interviewer behaviour and perceptions change with experience. Also, their research reveals that the length of interview became shorter with interviewer’s increased experience. A combination of two or more different methods of interview can prove to be more effective than one of the methods individually, in sociological research. An integrated method that can be recommended is a combination of structured and unstructured approaches: where a focus group of selected individuals form the interviewees. They can be given questionnaires to complete, in order to obtain objective, short answers or data for evaluation. After the questionnaires are filled, the researcher can interview them on the topic under study, again with a planned set of open-ended questions, in order to obtain their subjective perspectives regarding various issues which may be part of the research study. Further, the focus group can be asked to voice their concerns freely on any related issues, which need to be taken into account. Here the researcher should ensure that one individual does not dominate the discussion with his ideas, and all the members of the group are given opportunities to speak. Thus, an in-depth and comprehensive knowledge base with different interviewee perspectives becomes available for statistical analysis, evaluation and problem solving. This paper has highlighted the importance of interviewing as a technique in social science research, the different methods of interviewing, and the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches. An integrated method of combining three interview approaches: the focus group, the questionnaire method and the informal, conversational interview, provide the advantages of both structured as well as unstructured interview techniques, and counter the disadvantages of each individual approach. References Arksey, H & Knight, P. 1999. Interviewing for social scientists: an introductory resource with examples. London: Sage Publications. Babbie, E.R. 2005. The basics of social research. United Kingdom: Thomson Wadsworth. Becchofer, F. & Paterson, L. 2000. Principles of research design in the social sciences. London: Routledge. Bernard, H.R. 2006. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative. The United Kingdom: AltaMira Press. Briggs, C.L. 1986. Learning how to ask: a sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. 1994. Research methods in education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Elliott, B.J. 2005. Using narrative in social research: qualitative and quantitative. London: Sage Publications. Gold, R.L. 1958. Roles in sociological field operation. Social Forces, 36: 217-223. Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. 2001. Handbook of interview research: context and method. United Kingdom: Sage Publications. Kacmar, K.M. & Hochwarter, W.A. 1995. The interview as a communication event: a field examination of demographic effects on interview outcomes. The Journal of Business Communication, 32 (3): 207-234. Krajewski, H.T., Goffin, R.D., McCarthy, J., Rothstein, M.G. & Johnston, N. 2006. Comparing the validity of structured interviews for managerial-level employees: should we look to the past or focus on the future? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 411-432. Olson, K. & Peytchev, A. 2007. Effect of interviewer experience on interview pace and interviewer attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71 (2): 273-286. Rex, J. 1974. Approaches to sociology: an introduction to major trends in British sociology. London: Routledge. Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. 2005. Research methods for social work. London: Thomson Wadsworth. Scott, C. 1961. Research on mail surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 124 (2): 143-205. Valentine, G. 1999. Doing household research: interviewing couples together and apart. Area, 31 (1): 67-74. Read More