Interviews such as the informal interview has an overall data aim, here the indirect approach is used were the researcher involved displays no authority, listens patiently, gives no advice or argument and only asks questions when necessary. In the relaxed atmosphere of the informal interview respondents can talk on their own terms and are not constrained by fixed answer questions. However this produces rather narrow information.
The semi-structured interview is similar to the informal interview whereas preset questions were not asked at the same order or time but the researcher is provided with an outline of topics to be covered and questions to be asked. The semi-structured approach is very common and tends to be the choice in much qualitative work. The advantages of this method are that there is a natural conversation flow and respondents are free to explore other avenues of thought. These are finely balanced against the disadvantages; from the positivists point of view there is a weak reliability or comparison across respondents.
Interviews can also be a standardised procedure, this can be known as the structured but open-ended method. Here the researcher gives preset questions in a predetermined order to each of the respondents, this keeps the multiplicity of interpersonal variables to a minimum and ensures greater consistency in the data collected. However the respondents are still free to answer the questions in any way.
The fully structured interview also has preset and ordered questions but here there is also a fixed answer to each question. This is usually a face-to-face technique but occasionally can be conducted by telephone or post, however this may reduce bias even further. The structured method is usually in use when you are stopped in the street as part of a survey. Responses are counted and analysed numerically. Many researchers who argue that structured approaches leave little time for normal conversation would reject these last two methods. Semi- structured and lesser approaches on the other hand allow the respondents the opportunity to express what they have to say. (Smith 1996).
Another method of research is the “Focus group interview”; this usually consists of a group of 8 people on a specific topic. However, the focus group is not a discussion, a problem solving session or a decision making group, it is an interview. Merton et al (1956) wrote “The Focus Interview” a classic in this area. Using the focus group method is an efficient technique of qualitative data collection and it is also very timesaving, whereas a group is interviewed rather than an individual. However facilitating a group requires group skills and as with any group power struggles will be played out.
To conduct a successful interview the researcher must set a “Purpose Statement” which should include the questions for the interview, who and what the information is for and how it will be used. According to Patton (1990) there are six main questions, experience, knowledge, feelings, opinions, behaviour and sensory, whereas Turner (1982) stated that the setting is pivotal to the whole work, and rests to some extent of the knowledge of the researcher. Questions should be worded correctly, you should begin with a purpose statement, never ask why questions, use probing questions and use the interviewees language. Things can also go wrong, so the researcher must be prepared. Interviewers have 3 common choices for the saving of data: note taking, audiotape or video recordings.
Throughout this essay I have examined many methods of interview techniques and explained the advantages and disadvantages of each. Semi- structured and informal methods are very similar in style, were there is a relaxed atmosphere for the participating respondents and they are both efficient for data collection. The structured approach, whether it be face-to-face, postal or by telephone seem to be less time consuming but validity and reliability are weak.
