Field Notes and Structured Interviews in Education Research - Assignment Example

Field s and Structured Interviews in Education Research Q What are the advantages and disadvantages of relying solely on field s, in comparison with producing a transcription of an audio or video recording? Field notes are structured documents or transcribed notes extracted from data and statistics collected during a surveillance or interview. Data extracted from observations, meetings and conferencing is in raw form unless it is documented in black and white. This data may be recorded in notes, drafts, audio and video tape footages and images. Field notes may be descriptive (showing a mental picture of events observed) or reflective (showing the observer’s views about the observation). Advantages If field notes are accurate, detailed, relevant, descriptive and reflective at the same time, then they may be very advantageous as compared to audio or video recording transcriptions. The reflective part of field notes can inform us if the event was exclusive, extraordinary or frequent. That is, the researcher can very well tell us about the statistics regarding how distinctive the event was. He can tell this as he must have spent much time in the field as a scrutinizer recording specifications of events. This task is not performed by audio and video tape recordings. Field notes inform us about the perspectives and reflections of a participant which we cannot hear or see on audio and video tapes as these are only limited to observable articles. Field notes can provide an overall view of the setting and the system depending on how deeply the researcher has observed. Video recordings can only give us a confined view of the scene due to the limitations of the camera lens range, states Fetterman (1998). It would take too much budget and human resources to arrange for multiple cameras. The range of human eyesight is always wider than that of the camera lens. Field notes do not require any special recording equipment with the need of attendants and trained professionals and this lessens down the research budget. Audio and video recordings require more resources and hence are at a loose edge this way. Disadvantages Field notes are at disadvantage because audio and, especially, video recordings give us a complete picture of the whole setting under observation, people involved, activities taking place and the nature of these activities (Dufon 2002: 43). Field notes might give an unclear picture of the setting or the system because it requires great expertise in language and descriptive and reflective writing to make the field notes a crystal clear sense of the observation. Field notes do not very efficiently throw light upon facial expressions, gestures, body language or other visual interactional signals of the speaker; whereas, video recordings do this very effectively. Also, in audio recordings, one is able to perceive through the verbal tone what the speaker intends to convey to the listener. Words change their meanings with differing tones when spoken. Field notes may miss this point. Field notes, if not mentioned in the reflective portion, do not show the level of attention and interest of the interlocutors which is useful in estimating the intensity of their comfort and participation in the setting. Transcriptions of audio and video recordings can serve this purpose properly. Field notes do not provide us with denser linguistic information because the researcher will not be recording each and every word he hears because of remembrance limitations and slow writing speed. He will only be briefly writing down the main points. Audio and video recordings provide us proper linguistic information as every word is recorded. Audio and video recordings allow us to play and re-play the recording as many times as we want and every time we go through it, we find newer things which might have gone overseen in the first attempt. It is helpful to go through the recording repeatedly in order to get to better conclusions. Field notes do not provide us with this advantage. If field notes are not made as soon as the interview or any observation ends, they are of less use. Time matters very much here. Things should be noted down during or right after the end of the session when they are still fresh in the researcher’s mind. In audio and video tapes, we do not have to go through this hassle. The interviewee can always argue against the field notes by stating that a certain point was misunderstood by the interviewer or that he never said such a thing if he wanted to separate himself from that point after some days. Audio and video tapes can never be denied or argued upon because these will serve as live proofs. Q.2. What would be lost by relying on an audio recording rather than a video recording? It varies from situation to situation whether the researcher opts for an audio recording or a video recording. Both forms of recording have their benefits and tradeoffs. However, some drawbacks in relying solely on an audio recording are described as under. Despite its advantage over field notes, an audio recording is still unable to provide us with a comprehensive detail of the research setting. One is able to make out the point in a video recording by watching the interlocutor’s facial gestures and body cues even if there is background noise hindering with the interviewee’s words. In an audio recording, this unwanted background noise is apt to make the recording somewhat or even completely unintelligible. Therefore, to make out the desired audio from ambiguous audio information, interpretive proficiency of sound recognition is mandatory at different levels, for example, making out which sound is phonemic or phonetic or electronic or environmental, and etcetera. It is difficult to process loads of audio recording on the tape if the process of data registration prolongs itself even much after the active phase of participation is over. Thus, limiting the observational research time becomes very necessary. Locating and editing long passages on a long audio tape also proves to be a hectic task. An audio recording comes with the hassle of correct placement of microphones in order to correctly capture the speaker’s words from every possible angle. Placing a microphone here and there also increases the unwanted chance of recording much ambiguous and unselective background information which tends to make the real speech indistinct. Video recording is free of such hassle though that also requires placement of cameras here and there but in that case, the sound ambiguity is not there. Another thing that is lost in relying on audio tapes rather than on video tapes is the capturing of non-verbal communication between the interlocutor and the observer. Watching and understanding the non-verbal facial gestures and body language are very important for the researcher to get to right conclusions after going through the tape afterwards. Thus, in audio tapes, analysis time automatically increases which makes the research process slightly lengthy. Audio tapes also do not accurately point out or identify the speaker in situations where a group of speakers are to be audio recorded. This is very properly done by a video tape in which one can clearly identify who is the addressee without having to be told by someone else. Thus, in audio tape recording, there is need for continuous vocal identification of the orator which gets disturbing or irritating at times. Listening to a ‘talking box’ may become uninteresting from time to time and the researchers may begin getting bored and start losing focus because there is no eye contact. In video tape, the eye contact is, no doubt, fake, but it is still there and the researcher feel looking and being looked at by the speaker. According to Hartwig (2005: 76), although the recording process is more or less the same in both audio and video tape recordings; however, “about 200 times more information can be found in the video signal than in an audio signal”. A piece of video tape can store much more information than a similar piece of audio tape. The reason for this is that audio tapes use still heads whereas video tapes comprise of a number of small sized heads that are incorporated on a rotary disc allowing much more information to be recorded as compared to audio tapes. Thus, information capacity is another major thing that you tend to lose if you rely on an audio tape alone. Hartwig (2005: 76) explains this in these statements: Standard audio tape is ¼ inch wide. Early videotape was much larger (2 inches), although with new technology it is generally ½ to 1 inch wide. Second, standard audio tape speed is 7.5 inches per second (ips), while earlier video ran at 15 ips. Finally, audio heads are stationary. Video uses several smaller heads mounted on a rotating disk. All of these characteristics provide video with the capacity it requires to handle the extra information. In audio tapes, the issue of sound quality also arises. Sound quality tends to be poor if radio microphone is not used and if acoustics are of bad quality. Audio tapes have to rely only on sound and if sound comes out to be incomprehensible or indecipherable, then audio tapes prove to be at a loose edge. Q.3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of structured interviewing? Before getting into the niceties of advantages and disadvantages of structured interviews, let’s first get a brief introduction of what structured interviews actually are. Structured interviews are also called fixed format interviews or patterned interviews or directive interviews. These are the interviews in which the interviewer prepares a typical set of questions, about a pre-selected subject matter, that are to be asked from each interviewee in the same pattern. The purpose is to compare and assess all candidates on a fair basis. Unlike an unstructured interview, structured interviews do not allow frank conversation between the two parties because the main focus is on the precision and putting all candidates side by side in order to evaluate their job skills and competencies. These interviews can be carried out face to face, through telephone or over the internet through online collaborative tools. The interviewer is permitted to clarify things to the interviewee if he finds a question too perplexing to answer. Now, let’s discuss the advantages and disadvantages of structured interviewing. Advantages Through a structured interview, the interviewee is able to evaluate the intensity of understanding the interviewee shows about the carefully-selected topic which could not be accessed using an unstructured interview or postal questionnaires. It is used as a potent type of decisive evaluation of candidates’ abilities. This is because it helps in identifying what a candidate thinks about a particular issue without having to use secondary methods. A candidate whom the interviewee wants to explore further for job appointment can easily be identified using structured interviews. Since all candidates are asked the same set of questions in the same pattern, it makes it easy for the researcher to compare the candidates. All the candidates know that they will be provided equal opportunities to let the interviewer know about their competencies for that specific job position. Conducting the same interview in the same order also makes it simple for the interviewer to repeat it with every candidate. That is why it is called a standardized research approach. A structured interview is quantifiable as it is a dependable resource for collecting quantitative statistics about all candidates. It is a time-saving approach of interviewing as the interviewer can handle a large number of people effortlessly, efficiently and fast. Closed type questions are easy to create, ask, interpret and analyze. The whole interview focuses on one pre-selected issue thus reducing the complexities and confusions. The interviewer does not get stressed out thinking of new questions and does not get nervous about what to ask as the questions are all pre-written. The interviewees share a reserved relationship with the interviewer because he knows beforehand what he is going to be asked and what information is needed from him. The flow of conversation is controlled by the interviewer as a structured interview does not have room for frank discussions. This also saves time which is a precious asset while administering interviews with a large group of people. Frank discussions are apt to generate biased responses from the candidates thus enhancing interviewer bias which is another important issue regarding structured interviews. The candidates’ particulars and specific concerns are discussed rather than going into unnecessary details. Thus, structured interviews intend to gather factual information which is accurate and reliable both at the same time. Probes, that is, follow-up questions can be asked that are born from an original question so as to catch up some more information from the candidate which he also might be willing to share. If the interview is supposed to be in the form of questionnaires, then along with a predetermined set of questions, there is also a predetermined set of answer choices to each question for the candidates to choose from. A structured interview is always in a standardized format, be it a face to face interview or a questionnaire. Response rate is always better in a structured interview. Limited amount of data is generated which takes less time to analyze and make decisions whereas in an unstructured interview, unlimited or large amount of data is generated whose analysis is very time-consuming. According to Hersen, Turner and Beidel (2007: 81), structured interviews have a major advantage in diagnostic evaluations. When two interviewers conduct the same structured interview with the same patient at two different times, then they are sure to come up with the same diagnosis thanks to closed end questions and limited answer options to choose from if questionnaires are to be used. On the other hand, if open ended questions are asked by the two different physicians from the same patient, then there are great chances that their diagnostic evaluations differ from each other’s hypothesis because they may record the answers given by the patient differently and may rate the intensity of disease or symptoms or pain in a different manner. Structured interviews solve this problem very efficiently by standardizing the interview for clinical research. The diagnostic criteria are followed in a systematic approach. This helps the physicians to come up with the same diagnosis which eventually helps in making right treatment decisions. Structured interviews also prove to be cost-effective as compared to other forms of interviewing. For example, in clinical research or clinical setting, they endorse the knowledge of particular diagnostic questions which may be simple or follow-up. Thus, they can be used as wonderful tools for the training of clinicians. Similarly, people other than clinicians can also be easily skilled to conduct structured interviews and this reduces the overall cost of the research because there is not a particular need for highly qualified staff for administering structured interviews as these are standardized and the interviewer does not have to edit it or add anything to it. Simple training can qualify anyone to carry them out. Disadvantages The interviewer is not allowed to edit, add or delete any question because of the importance of the carefully structured questions by the researcher. The information obtained from the candidates depends majorly upon the quality of the set of questioned predetermined by the researcher. A structured interview requires considerable pre-planning and careful determination of questions keeping in view the status of the candidates’ abilities and covering all concerned subject areas. Challenging questions have to be made in accordance with the requirements of the position so that core competencies can be assessed. Though the interview itself might not be time consuming; however, the preparation is time taking at the researcher’s end. It is not possible to accommodate open ended questions or questions that are too complicated to be answered simply. The respondent is not allowed to give an in-depth reply to a question which limits his response. The presence of the researcher at the time of interview and his state of mind or personality may cause a candidate to give biased replies. For example, a male interviewer questioning a young female interviewee about her failed marriage experience may cause her to make biased responses due to her embarrassment, or an interviewer showing attitude to the candidates may make them feel like hiding in their shells and this may make them keep their responses limited to themselves or make responses which may make the interviewer happy. A main disadvantage with a structured interview is that the researcher has pre-decided, at the time of preparation of questions, which issues he thinks are important and which are unimportant. Also, structured interviews are “problem-centered” rather than “person-centered”, according to Hersen, Turner and Beidel (2007: 82). Sometimes the process becomes time-consuming if there is a very large sample group of people to be interviewed. A structured interview is inflexible, that is, there is there is no space for unexpected discoveries on the candidate’s end. If a questionnaire is being used with pre-decided answers to choose from, then a candidate might come to the conclusion that his response does not match any of the given answer choices. Thus, his responses get limited to the set of answers that have been predetermined by the researcher. It can at times generate frustration. For example, in a child psychology clinic, a parent might get frustrated when he sees that his child’s behavior does not fit with any of the given answers. In such cases, the questions need to be given a little semi-structured approach to lessen down the inflexibility and make the interviewee feel at ease. Though structured interviews are cost-effective on the whole; however, in-person structured interviews are a little more costly as compared to those that are carried out through telephone or internet. This is because of the need of extra staffing and extra time required conducting interview by going to the location, supervise it and return. If visual aids, pictures and images are to be shown to the candidates while interviews, then this cannot be done if the interviews are to be carried out through telephone or mail. This is only possible in in-person or online interviews. References DuFon, M 2002, ‘Obtaining valid video data’, Video Recording in Ethnographic SLA Research: Some Issues of Validity in Data Collection, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 40-59. Fetterman, D. M 1998, Ethnography: Step by step, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hartwig, R 2005, ‘Analog video recording standards and formats’, Basic TV Technology: Digital and Analog, 4th edn, Focal Press, UK. Hersen, M, Turner, S & Beidel, D 2007, ‘Advantages and disadvantages of structured and semi-structured interviews’, Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis, 5th edn, John Wiley and Sons, USA. Read More