Importance of Interaction between Research Participants - Case Study Example

Qualitative Research: In-depth Interview and Focus Group Name Institution Course Date Qualitative Research: In-depth Interview and Focus Group Introduction Qualitative research is widely used to gather information on different fields of study. Although qualitative research is used in a variety of fields of study, this method is widely used in gathering information on social phenomena (Patton 2002, p. 14). Most social researchers find it suitable and useful to use quantitative research techniques because of the low cost and the fact they provide interesting results. In-depth interviews and focus group are the most common qualitative research techniques in use in collecting data on social phenomena (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2010, p. 7). This paper begins by describing in-depth interviews and focus group as qualitative research methods, and providing the conditions for their use. The paper will proceed to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the two techniques and analyze how they have been used in exploring social phenomenon. In-depth Interview In-depth interviews are one of the qualitative research methods and involve rigorous interviewing a small number of respondents in order to understand the views of the respondents about a given situation (Kvale 1996, p. 42). For instance, in an organizational situation, an in-depth interview can be conducted by a company to understand their perspective as regards why a company is experience high employee turnover. In-depth interviews rely on many sources of information that includes but not limited to policymakers, employees of an organization, program participants and members of the community (Kitzinger 1994, p. 103). Types of In-depth Interviews There are various types of in-depth interviews that can be used in qualitative research and can be formal or informal. The three main categories of in-depth interviews include structured, semi-structured and unstructured. Structured interviews refers to that interview that is involves verbal administration of questionnaires with a list of questions that can be open-ended or closed (Seidman 2015, p. 41). The questions asked are not varied and there is no follow-ups made for further elaboration. Structure interviews are preferred mainly because they can be administered quickly (Patton 2002, p. 25). Besides, such an interview is normally useful when a researcher needs to get clarification on a particular issue and in cases where there are literacy problems with the respondents. Nevertheless, this type of interview only allows limited responses from participants, which makes it of less use when depth is needed. The other type is semi-structured interviews is that type of interview that involve asking several fundamental questions to assist in understanding areas that needs exploration (Kvale 1996, p. 21). Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in fields, such as healthcare because it guides the participants in a study as to what to say (Minichiello 1990, p. 16). The third type is the unstructured interviews that are conducted without following any preconceived organization (Kitzinger 1994, p. 104). Unstructured interviews take a very simple form and progresses based on the responses received from the respondent. However, this type of interview has the shortcoming in that it is time consuming and is usually difficult to manage (Minichiello 1990, p. 21). Therefore, unstructured interviews are mainly considered for use where depth is needed or in cases where there is absolutely nothing known about the subject needed. Purpose of In-depth Interviews In-depth interviews are very important since it helps individuals, organizations and the government explore the perspectives, beliefs, experiences and motivations of people on a given subject (Britten 1999, p. 12). For instance, through interviews, it is easy for the government to understand why cancer cases have been on the rise so that effective strategies can be put in place to prevent the disease. In fact, interviews being a qualitative research is believed to be useful since it helps in understanding a given social phenomenon better than would be when such information is obtain quantitatively using questionnaires (Kvale 1996, p. 49). Besides, interviews is the most appropriate data collection method to adopt in situations where little is already known about the subject matter of investigation and in situations where the researcher needs to explore a social phenomenon in details from the field. Additionally, interviews are useful as they helps in gathering information about sensitive subjects where participants may be adamant and not willing to divulge information, notes Kaar (2009, p. 21). Factors to Consider When Conducting Interviews In order to conduct successful interviews in exploring a social phenomenon, certain factors need to be taken into consideration by the researcher. First, the researcher/interviewer should ensure that the questions asked are those that are likely to yield a lot of information regarding the phenomenon being investigated (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2010, p. 17). At the same time, the questions asked need address the objectives and goals of the study. Additionally, the questions need to sensitive, neutral and understandable to the respondents. Another factor is that the researcher should ensure that easy questions are the ones started with followed by those that appear difficult to answer (Kvale 1996, p. 62). This is important because it makes the respondents feel at ease, and confident when providing information, thus resulting in the provision of rich information. Time is another factor that must be considered before conducting an interview. This is because the duration it takes to perform an interview varies by topic (Britten 1999, p. 22). As such, understating the time it would take to conduct and interview is important as it ensures that the researcher is prepared for the duration. Additionally, the researcher should ensure that the respondents are well informed about the research and provided with assurance regarding ethical principles, such as confidentiality and anonymity (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2010, p. 23). This is important as it helps prepare the respondents for the interview and helps in increasing the honesty during the interview. Other factors that also need to be factored include ensuring that interviews are conducted in environments that are free from destructions and portraying open and emotionally neutral body language, smiling and showing interest in the interview. Advantages and Disadvantages of In-Depth Interviews Advantages The main advantage of in-depth interviews is that this research method provides rich information about a phenomenon than any other data collection method, such as questionnaires (Britten 1999, p. 31). Second, in-depth interviews are advantageous because it creates a relaxed environment for data collection. This is because it makes the participants feel comfortable conversing with the researcher about the subject as opposed to other questionnaires that involves filling forms (Kitzinger 1994, p. 106). Disadvantages Although in-depth interviews have advantages, this data collection method has several limitations that must be taken into consideration when choosing it for use. First, interviews are prone to bias. Kaar (2009, p. 11) notes that some researchers skew the interview or manipulate them to fit their aim or objectives. Beside, the respondents might also provide biased responses because of the stake they have on the subject. Second, interviews can sometimes be time consuming. In some cases, it takes a lot of time to conduct an interview, write the responses down and analyze them. As such, researchers must ensure that time is considered for transcription and data analysis (Kitzinger 1994, p. 108). Third, interviews are never negotiable, which is a major shortcoming. Additionally, Kaar (2009, p. 16) observed that the success of interviews as a data collection method depends on the qualification of the interviewer, which must be properly trained. Use of In-Depth Interview in Domestic Violence Research In-depth interviews are widely used in exploring social phenomena. Domestic violence is one of the social issues that are studied using in-depth interviews. Most of the interviews try to establish the rates of domestic violence in the society, reasons for domestic violence and its physical and psychological effects among others. One such is Swanberg and Logan (2005, p. 3) study that sought information about the impacts of domestic violence on the employed women, with a focus on how it interferes with their job performance and the implications of disclosing such information to the coworkers or employers. To gather this information, the researcher interviewed 32 rural and urban women who have been employed for the past one year and are have been victims of partner violence. A similar qualitative study on domestic violence was conducted by Chitashvili et al. (2010, p. 2) in which the researchers sought to understand the differences between men and women who experience domestic violence, domestic violence practices, participants’ experiences, their perception and management strategies. To achieve this, the researchers conducted an in-depth interview of 3,872 women. In both cases, the use of in-depth was helpful as the qualitative aspects of the interviews enabled the researchers to understand and get first-hand information as regards the perception of women on partner violence, its effects on the participants and their coping strategies. Focus Group Focus group is a type of qualitative research that involves asking a group of people questions about their opinions, perspective, believes and attitudes towards a given phenomenon (Kamberelis and Dimitriadis, G 2013, p. 2). Focus group, therefore, involves selecting people and interviewing them as a group by allowing them to express their views, opinions, personal experiences and attitudes towards the subject matter under study. It is important to understand that focus group is a type of group interviewing. However, whereas group interviewing entails interviewing two or more people at the same time, focus group involves interaction within the group based on the subject that the researcher has supplied for response (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2010, p. 14). Purpose of Focus Groups Focus group serves a variety of purposes. First, focus groups are used to understand the behaviors, attitudes, perspectives, beliefs and feelings of the respondents about a given social phenomenon. Secondly, focus groups are used for formulating hypothesis on a given phenomenon (Stewart and Shamdasani 2014, p. 34). Third, researchers use focus groups to understand group norms and dynamics. Additionally, focus groups are used for developing concepts and questions that are used in quantitative research, such as questionnaires. Moreover, focus groups help researchers in brainstorming about a give concept, such as product ideas and in finding a common language. Types of focus groups There are many types of focus groups that a researcher can adopt when conducting research on a qualitative research. First is the single focus group, which involves gathering information from a single group of people (Morris 2015, p. 15). The second type is two-way focus group which involves each of the focus groups watching each other alternately, records and discusses what they have observed. Third is dual moderator focus group which involves a single moderator leads the research to ensure smooth running as the other ensures that all the matters under investigation are adequately explored (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2010, p. 33). Fourth is dueling moderator (fencing moderator), which is a type of focus group involving two moderators knowingly taking opposite sides on a given phenomenon under investigation. Fifth is respondent moderator, which is a type of focus group involving only a single respondent acting as a research moderator though on a temporary basis. Other types of focus groups commonly adopted included client participation, teleconference, and creative, online and band obsessive focus groups (Krueger and Casey 2014, p. 9). Factors to Consider When Using Focus Groups Like in in-depth focus groups, there are factors that a researcher needs to take into consideration when using focus group when conducting research. First, a researcher needs to consider the size and composition of a focus group. In this respect, it is advisable that a researcher consider aspects, such as the mix of sexes, gender, age, education and social status of the participants (Kamberelis and Dimitriadis, G 2013, p. 4). The researcher is required to ensure that due consideration is given to the effects of the group mix before the focus group can be allowed to proceed. Other than composition, Stewart and Shamdasani argues that size of the focus group is an important consideration as they suggest that a researcher should consider over-recruiting slightly to ensure that the focus group is large enough as this ensure better discussion. Second factor is the questions to ask a focus group. Stewart and Shamdasani suggest that the researcher should start by asking general questions followed by specific ones and that the order of questions should be in accordance to the importance of the subject being studied. Other factors to consider include the venue of focus group, recording equipments, and systematic analysis of transcripts. Advantages and Disadvantages of Focus Groups Advantages Like in-depth interview, focus groups also have advantages. First, this method is less expensive compared to other methods, such as surveys (Krueger and Casey 2014, p. 12). Second, focus group provides a faster way of collecting data and gaining insight on a given phenomenon. Third, the method promotes social interaction between the researcher and the respondents, which helps in building trust that in turn result in better information gathering (Liamputtong 2011, p. 76). Additionally, there is group dynamics that facilitate reactions and discussions. Disadvantages Focus group has a number of shortcomings that made it less appropriate for use in qualitative research. First, the technique gives the researcher less control over data. Second, it is based on group opinion that might not hold true. Third, the method is associated with self censorship (Kamberelis and Dimitriadis, G 2013, p. 15). Additionally, it might be time consuming because it requires consensus building among the members of a focus group. Other shortcoming of focus group includes the fact that it involves excessive optimism, which encourages risk taking and the fact that there is no generalization. Use of Focus Group in Obesity Research Focus group is widely used in exploring social phenomena. Obesity is one of the social issues that the world is facing today. Focus groups have particularly been used by many researchers in understanding the perceptions of the population about obesity, and risk factors. One such study was conducted by Skelton et al. (2012, p. 289) in which the researchers used three focus groups consisting of children to understand their perception of obesity, physical activity, nutrition and influence of the family over health behaviors. Sylvetsky, et al. (2013, p. 1) used focus group to understand the perception of obesity and to highlight the gaps between their dietary habits, nutritional knowledge and perceived risk of obesity and its co-morbidities. In both cases, the focus group proved important as the qualitative elements of enabled the researchers explain the risk factors for obesity and the participants perception and knowledge about this health condition. Conclusion In-depth interviews and focus group are the common forms of data collection techniques used in qualitative research. As indicated in the discussion, both methods have their strengths and shortcomings that must be taken into consideration when choosing the technique to use in qualitative research. Additionally, the paper has demonstrated how in-depth interviews have been used in conducting research on domestic violence while focus group has been widely used in conducting research on obesity both of which are major social problems globally. References Britten N 1999, Qualitative interviews in healthcare. In Pope C, Mays N (eds) Qualitative research in health care. 2nd ed. BMJ Books, London. Chitashvili, M., Javakhishvili, N., Arutiunov, L., Tsuladze, L., Chachanidze, S. 2010. National research on domestic violence against women in Georgia. Final Report, pp. 1-59. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P 2010, The practice of qualitative research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks. Kaar, M 2009, A critical investigation of the merits and drawbacks of in-depth interviews. GRIN Verlag, Berlin. Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G 2013, Focus groups: from structured interviews to collective conversations. Routledge, Mason. Kitzinger J 1994, “The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants,” Social Health Illn vol. 16, pp. 103–121. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A 2014, Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. SAGE Publications, London. Kvale S 1996, Interviews. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Liamputtong, P 2011, Focus group methodology: principle and practice. SAGE, London. Minichiello, V 1990, In-depth interviewing: Researching people. Longman Cheshire, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Morris, A 2015, A practical introduction to in-depth interviewing. SAGE Publications, London. Patton, M. Q 2002, Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Seidman, I 2015, Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences, 4th ed. Teachers College Press, Sidney. Skelton, J. A., Irby, M. B., Guzman, M. A., & Beech, B. M 2012, “Children's Perceptions of Obesity and Health: A Focus Group Study with Hispanic Boys,” Infant Child Adolesc Nutr. Vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 289–296. Doi:  10.1177/1941406412446946 Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N 2014, Focus groups. SAGE Publications, Oxford, NY. Swanberg, J. E., & Loga, T. K 2005, “Domestic violence and employment: A qualitative study,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3–17. Sylvetsky, C., Hennink, M., Comeau, D., Welsh, J. A., Hardy, T., Matzigkeit, L., Swan, D. W., Walsh, S. M., & Vos, M. B. 2013. Youth Understanding of Healthy Eating and Obesity: A Focus Group Study. Journal of Obesity, Vol. 2013, doi:  10.1155/2013/670295 Read More