Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Research Methods 7

Interviews

There are essentially five types of interview that a sociologist can use:

(a) The structured interview.


(b)The unstructured interview.
(c) The semi-structured interview.
(d)The group interview
(e) The focus group interview.

Introduction

Interviews, whatever type are being used by the sociologist, are generally recorded
manually (i.e. people’s responses are written down by the sociologist) and/or tape-
recorded/videoed in order to produce a transcript from which quotes illustrating the
point of view of the respondent can be used in support (or to contradict) a particular
hypothesis. Interviews can be carried out in a public space, e.g. on the street by market
researchers, on the telephone or on the internet in chat-rooms. However, the most
successful interviews are carried out in private, neutral and unthreatening
venues.

Interviews are particularly useful when studying areas which are not accessible to
sociological study using other methods, e.g. it might not be practical to observe how
a family cares for a sick member on a daily basis whereas a surgeon might not respond to
a questionnaire about surgical mistakes.

However, interviewing can be an expensive business especially if a large interviewing


team needs to be recruited and trained. Moreover, the success of interviewing often
depends on how well the interviewers are trained in interview techniques such as
listening skills and body language.

(1) Structured Interviews

A structured interview usually involves the researcher reading out a list of closed
questions from an interview schedule (i.e. questionnaire) and ticking boxes or
writing down answers according to pre-set fixed categories on behalf of the
respondent. The interviewer plays a passive role in that the interviewer is not
normally allowed to deviate from the questions on the interview schedule.

1
There is usually little or no flexibility in the way questions can be asked. The
interviewer is usually not allowed to add new questions.

The responses to these types of interviews are usually converted into a quantitative
form, and expressed in statistics, percentages, tables, charts and graphs. In this sense,
they are very similar to questionnaires and consequently, they share many of
the strengths and weaknesses of questionnaires

Positivism & Structured Interviews

Positivists are very keen on structured interviews because they regard the method as
scientific. Structured interviews are regarded as highly reliable because they are
easily repeated. Other interviewers can use the same interview schedule or
questionnaire. The interview is like a cookery recipe - as in cookery, anyone who follows
it should get the same results.

Strengths of structured interviews Weaknesses of structured interviews

The use of closed questions and fixed- Structured interviews, like questionnaires,
choice tick-boxes generates large are artificial devices which are not a
amounts of quantitative factual data normal part of everyday reality –people
that can be easily converted into may therefore respond to them with
tables, charts, graphs etc. for suspicion and only supply evasive, partial
comparison and correlation. or false information.
Structured interviews can be Structured interviews are inflexible
conducted quite quickly because they because the questionnaire or interview
follow a pre-set range of questions schedule is drawn up in advance and the
which means that hundreds and even interviewer must stick to it rigidly.
thousands of people can be Interpretivists note that this makes it
interviewed in a relatively short period impossible to pursue any interesting leads
of time. This increases the possibility that may emerge in the course of the
of a representative sample from which interview.
generalisations can be made.
Interviewers can explain the aims and Structured interviews are only snapshots
objectives of the research and clarify taken at one moment in time and so they
instructions. This may reduce potential fail to capture the dynamic and changing
non-response as well as addressing nature of social life. People’s experiences
people’s ethical concerns. and attitudes may change over time –
structured interviews will fail to record this
change.
Structured interviews have better Interpretivists suggest people may
response rates than questionnaires interpret questions in a different way to
because interviewers can return if the that intended by the interviewer. For
respondent is not at home. example, if a sociologist asks people about
their experience of crime, he or she has to
make sure that all interviewees understand
what is meant by ‘crime’ in the same way
as the research team otherwise the validity

2
of the data is undermined.

Pre-coded answers to questions Interpretivist sociologists argue that


increase reliability because a later interviews that use closed questions with
researcher will categorise responses in category/list responses suffer from the
the same way as the original ‘imposition problem’ meaning that they
researcher. measure what the sociologist thinks is
important rather than what the
interviewee experiences. By choosing
particular questions and responses, the
researcher has already mapped out the
experiences, interpretations etc. of the
respondents and consequently the
sociologist may fail to ask the really
important questions.

(2) Unstructured Interviews

An unstructured interview is more like a guided conversation, where the talk is


informal but the researcher plays an active role in that he or she manages the
questions to ensure that the participant keeps to the subject of the research.
The interviewer in this situation does not normally have an interview schedule –
rather unstructured interviews are very flexible interviews because although the
interviewer has an idea of the topics they should be covering, he or she is quite happy
to follow the respondent if they feel that this might produce useful results. A skilful
interviewer will follow up ideas, probe responses to previous questions and
investigate motives and feelings in ways in which the questionnaire and
structured interview can never do.

Interpretivism and unstructured interviews

Interpretivist sociologists are very keen on unstructured interviews because they are
concerned with understanding the meanings or interpretations that underpin social
life, i.e. how people see and interpret the world around them. The responses to
unstructured interviews may provide sociologists with these interpretations.

Strengths of unstructured Weaknesses of unstructured


interviews interviews

Interpretivist sociologists like these type Positivist sociologists criticise


of interviews because they allow the unstructured interviews for being
researcher to establish some sort of unscientific because they lack reliability.
interaction or relationship with the Every interview is different because it
respondent, i.e. trust and rapport, which depends on a unique relationship
puts the interviewee at ease. This may established between the interviewer and
mean that interview subjects are more interviewee. It is not a standardised
likely to open up and say what they really measuring instrument and cannot
feel and mean, or give the interviewer therefore be replicated and checked by

3
information they would not think about another sociologist.
divulging in a questionnaire or a
structured interview.
From an interpretivist perspective, Unstructured interviews are criticised by
unstructured interviews allow the positivists for their lack of objectivity
researcher to get inside the heads of the because the researcher has got a
people being researched and to see the personal relationship with the
world through their eyes. More valid interviewee. Researchers might overly-
qualitative data is therefore collected. sympathise with the person being
interviewed and the final data therefore
may be biased.
The way that an unstructured interview is Unstructured interviews gather a
organised stresses that what the fantastic amount of data and
interviewee says or thinks is the central consequently the researcher has to be
issue – the respondent is placed at the selective in what they actually publish in
centre of the research. Respondents may support of their hypothesis. The
be more likely to discuss sensitive and researcher may end up consciously or
painful experiences if they feel that the unconsciously selecting material that
interviewer is sympathetic, empathetic supports their views. In other words, the
and truly interested. selected material might be biased. What
is left out of the final analysis may
actually contradict the hypothesis.
Unstructured interviews are very flexible. Because there are no pre-coded answers
The interviewer is not restricted to a in unstructured interviews, the
fixed set of questions but can explore qualitative data from unstructured
whatever is interesting. The researcher interviews is difficult to analyse and
(who has to be a trained sociologist so categorise because of the sheer volume of
they can recognise when the interviewee material in the respondent’s own words.
has made a sociologically important Positivists don’t like this sort of data
point) can formulate new hypotheses and because it is impossible to quantify and
put them to the test as they arise during turn into graphs, tables etc.
the interview.

Unstructured interviews are seen as Sociological research which uses


particularly suited to researching unstructured interviews tends to use
sensitive groups, i.e. people who might fewer participants than surveys.
be suspicious of or hostile to outsiders. Positivists claim that unstructured
Unstructured interviews allow the interview participants tend to be less
interviewer to explain the purpose of the representative of the research population
research. Anonymity and confidentiality as a result. It is therefore difficult to
are also usually stressed which generalise from them to similar
encourages people to open up and give populations in the wider community.
more valid responses.
Unstructured interviews provide richer, Unstructured interviews are expensive
more vivid and more colourful data – the because training needs to be more
data collected often speaks for itself in thorough and specialised. Interviewers
the form of extensive quotations from need to be trained in inter-personal skills
those being interviewed. Data therefore so that they establish good relationships
is highly valid. with interviewees.
Interviews are exceptionally time-
consuming to conduct and transcribe.
They often take several hours to
complete.

4
(3) Semi-structured Interviews

Many sociological interviews are a mix of the structured and unstructured interview. They
usually contain lots of closed questions in order to generate facts but also contain a few
open questions. These open questions allow the interviewer some flexibility to ask for
clarification of vague answers. They can jog respondent’s memories and ask them to
give examples. All these things can add depth and detail to the responses. They can
also assess whether the interviewee is telling the truth.

However, the reliability of such interviews has been questioned because an interviewer
might find that some interviewees may need more probing than others. This may
mean that every interview is different – the data may, therefore, not be strictly
comparable since, to some extent, the interviewees are responding to different
questions.

(4) Group interviews

Some interviews are carried out with groups rather than individuals. These may involve
the interviewer talking to a group or panel of respondents. They are often used to
interview children who may feel threatened if interviewed by an adult in one-to-
one situations. However, such children may feel reassured if their friends are
present.

They may also be used to investigate the dynamics of how particular groups
operate, e.g. a nursing team. The sociologist may believe that a truer and more valid
picture of their behaviour will only emerge when the group is interviewed together.

However, a danger of these types of interviews is that one or two strong personalities
may lead the other respondents to give particular answers. Peer group pressure
and fear of bullying may undermine the validity of the data collected.

(5) Focus group interviews

A variation on the group or panel interview is the focus group interview in which
participants are encouraged to talk to each other. Focus group interviews usually
involve people getting together to discuss an issue, rather than simply giving a
answer to a question. This method was first used by market researchers to see how
consumers responded to particular products and has since been adopted by media
organisations, political parties and sociologists.

Focus group interviews normally involve the sociologist introducing a group of


people to an issue, e.g. they may be shown an advertisement or public information film

5
or simply asked to discuss particular health questions or topics. The researcher relies on
the dynamics of the group to keep the discussion going, i.e. there is minimal
interference from the sociologist. Usually the interaction between members of the
group is recorded on audiotape or video. However, one danger of these types of
interview is that one or two strong personalities can dominate and influence
other participants’ opinions.

The danger of interviewer bias or effect

The biggest problem or weakness of all types of interviewing is interviewer bias


– this is when the interviewer influences the responses given by the interviewee
in some way. Such bias is often unavoidable but it undermines the validity of the
data that is collected from interviews.

 For example, some respondents may react negatively in an interview because of


the social characteristics, (i.e. the age, gender, social class, ethnicity etc.)
of the interviewer and consequently it may be impossible for the interviewer
to build up a relationship of trust and rapport with the interviewee. For
example, think about how young people, working-class people, Black people or
women might feel about being interviewed about a sensitive topic by elderly
people, posh people, White people and men respectively. It is therefore important
that that people should be interviewed by sociologists with similar social
characteristics.

The term ‘demand characteristics’ is often used by psychology researchers to refer to


any research situation in which the participants try to interpret the researcher’s
motives or aims, and consequently without realising it, change their behaviour.
In other words, the data collected from such research situations no longer
reflects natural behaviour and is therefore low in validity.

 For example, some respondents in their eagerness to please the interviewer


may give the interviewer the replies they think the sociologist wants rather
than the truth. This is known as the social desirability effect.

Demand characteristics may also result from the nature of the subject matter which
the interview is organised around. Some subject matter is potentially very sensitive
or embarrassing, and may produce exaggerated over-reporting.

 For example, when questioned about sexual activities, people, especially young
males, may well exaggerate in order to impress the interviewer.

People like to present themselves to sociologists in a positive light. This social


respectability effect may mean that respondents tend to be open about those aspects

6
of their behaviour that make them look like good citizen but they conceal the truth or
lie about some types of behaviour because they feel that the sociologist might
negatively judge them.

 For example, they may exaggerate and over-report giving to health charities
because it makes them look like good citizens but conceal behaviour such as being
treated for mental illness because they fear the sociologist will negatively label
them.

Interviewers can also create the potential for demand characteristics by unconsciously
leading respondents into particular responses through

 the tone of their voice or


 by the look of approval or disapproval on their face.

Finally, it is important to consider that interviewing depends on what people know about
their own behaviour. Obviously, this may be affected by faulty or hazy memory but
what if people simply do not recognise that they behave in a particular way? If
we ask a doctor whether he or she treats black people differently to white people, in all
innocence and sincerity, he or she would probably argue that they treat all people,
regardless of social background, in the same way. However, observation may show that
they do treat some groups more negatively.

In other words, some people may not be aware that they behave in particular
ways until they are shown clear evidence of it. Interviews are therefore not
going to uncover a great deal of valid data if people are not conscious of how
they behave.

Piloting interviews

It is important to carry out pilot interviews in order to iron out any potential problems
with the questionnaire or interview schedule. Questions should be tested on a
relatively small number of people who share the same characteristics of the
main sample. A pilot study is useful because it can check whether:

 The questions are clear and unambiguous


 The questions will upset or lead the participants
 The sampling technique is successful
 The interviewers are well-trained
 The data collected is the kind that is wanted.

However, all the preparation in the world cannot completely remove all potential
problems.

S-ar putea să vă placă și