Structured interviews are a means of collecting data for a , the interviewers read the questions exactly as they appear on the survey questionnaire. The choice of answers to the questions is often fixed (close-ended) in advance, though open-ended questions can also be included within a structured interview. A structured interview also standardises the order in which questions are asked of survey respondents, so the questions are always answered within the same context. This is important for minimising the impact of , where the answers given to a survey question can depend on the nature of preceding questions. Though context effects can never be avoided, it is often desirable to hold them constant across all respondents. This has its advantages in that the information is easily quantifiable and allows the responses to be compared. Due to the lack of flexibility in this approach, it means that there is "little room for unanticipated discoveries" (Breakwell, Hammond and Fife-Schaw 1995:231). People may feel that their response does not fit any of the designated answers.
Open-ended or unstructured interviews are defined by Nichols (1991:131) as "an informal interview, not structured by a standard list of questions. Fieldworkers are free to deal with the topics of interest in any order and to phrase their questions as they think best." This type of structure uses a broad range of questions asking them in any order according to how the interview develops (Breakwell, Hammond and Fife-Schaw 1995:231). Open-ended questions allow the interviewer, if they wish, to probe deeper into the initial responses of the respondent to gain a more detailed answer to the question (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:156). The richness of the data is therefore entirely dependant on the interviewer. They themselves, must judge how much or how little they should probe or say themselves.
There are of course both advantages and disadvantages to this type of structure. It is particularly useful as a pilot study, to test out what people’s responses would be to a particular issue. It may throw a completely different light on an issue that the interviewer had previously never considered (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:139). Freedom for the respondent to answer how they wish to is important in giving them a feeling of control in the interview situation. This version also has its disadvantages, namely in terms of the amount of time needed to collect and analyse the responses (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:139). Due to the varied nature of the responses, it is necessary to use the content analysis technique to analyse it. This is what takes the time. Open questions used in this unstructured interview approach can cause confusion either because of the lack of understanding of the question by the informant or by the lack of understanding of the respondent's answer by the interviewer (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:140). Despite some of these disadvantages, open-ended questions are very important. Gray (1987) showed this when she studied women’s relations to video technology. It was found that women wanted to tell their stories therefore needing open-ended questions to enable them to talk freely (Jensen and Jankowski 1991:155)
Using these two structures, there are 2 basic types of interview used in everyday research. The first of these is known as one to one interviews, personal interviews or intensive interviews. This type of interview uses a small sample averaging 30 people (Nichols 1991:13). The interview usually last up to several hours. It focuses on the use of open-ended questions allowing the respondent to answer freely. Questions that follow are then entirely based on how the respondent’s answer leads the interview. The questions are not therefore standardised (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:100). It is a suitable way to deal with sensitive or taboo topics yet as a whole requires a very good rapport to be established between interviewer and respondent (Nichols 1991:13 and Wimmer and Dominick 1997:100). This interview approach is flexible, providing a large amount of detail. It is clear that the answers are solely those of the person being questioned. The intensive situation that the interview is conducted in, may in itself allow information to be gained without directly asking for it (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:157). This approach also has its disadvantages essentially because it is time consuming and very costly. Interviewer bias is also quite a problem. The non-standardisation of the questions in this method means that it is difficult to generalise it on a larger scale (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:100 and 158).
The second type of interview technique is a group interview or focus group study. This was defined by Wimmer and Dominick (1997:97) as "a research strategy for understanding audience/ consumer attitudes and behaviour" The members of a focus group should feel very much at ease with each other before conducting the interview, ideally they should perhaps know each other already (see Buckingham’s study later). The members of the group should be of the same sex and share similar backgrounds in order to rule out any confounding variables (Nichols 1991:14). Conversation in a focus group can be either structured or unstructured (often somewhere in between) and can last up to two hours. Discussion is guided constantly by the interviewer whilst the respondents (usually 6-12 of them) discuss and express opinions with each other (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:97 and 455).
“Some researchers claim that the focus groups are not a good research methodology because of the potential influence of one or two respondents on the remaining members of the group. These critics say that a dominant respondent can negatively affect the outcome of the group and that group pressures may influence the comments made by individuals.” (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:461).
Although this could occur, it may also be that other respondents ideas spark new ideas with others, creating a snowball effect. The use of what is known as an extended focus group method, whereby each respondent fills out a questionnaire prior to the focus group discussion expressing their own personal views. This limits the problem of them being unwilling to express their opinion infront of the rest of the group (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:97). Focus group interviews frequently use unrepresentative samples as participants must often volunteer themselves to do it. It is only a certain kind of person that will do this. The quality of the data acquired from a focus group interview may also not be as good as with one to one interviews (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:107).
In general there are obviously advantages and disadvantages for using any interview method. It allows questioning to be guided as you want it and you can clarify points that need to be made clearer much more easily than in something like a mailed questionnaire (Frey and Oishi 1995:03). The technique does however rely on the respondent being willing to give accurate and complete answers (Breakwell, Hammond and Fife-Schaw 1995:238). They may often lie due to feelings of embarrassment, inadequacy, lack of knowledge on the topic, nervousness, memory loss or confusion. On the contrary, they may also provide very elaborate answers in an attempt to figure out the purpose of the study (Wimmer and Dominick 1997:162). Validity and reliability of the interview data may be influenced by these (Breakwell, Hammond and Fife-Schaw 1995:238-239).
"Interviewing is a complex and demanding technique" (Frey and Oishi 1995:02).
Having looked at the available research evidence concerning the use of interviews, it is clear that there are varying types of interview as well as various styles an interview can take. It has also been made clear, that many research studies using the interview method also use another methodology as well to allow for more accurate results and greater understanding. Interviewing is a difficult method to employ properly, relying on the interviewer themselves to enable an objective interview to be undertaken. It is a technique employed extensively in television viewing and which appears very effective for this field. It can provide valuable data either for personal reference only or as a means of gathering information to pursue further research using a different method.
"Interviewing provides an opportunity for combining practical, analytical and interpretative approaches to media" (Jensen and Jankowski 1991:223).
In general, qualitative research generates rich, detailed and valid (process) data that contribute to in-depth understanding of the context. Quantitative research generates reliable population based and generable data and is well suited to establishing cause-and-effect relationships.
The decision of whether to choose a quantitative or a qualitative design is a philosophical question. Which methods to choose will depend on the nature of the project, the type of information needed the context of the study and the availability of recourses (time, money, and human).
References
- I Marsh, Making Sense of Society, An Introduction to Sociology 1996, Longman Limited
-
Breakwell, Glynis M, Sean Hammond & Chris Fife-Schaw (1995): Research Methods in Psychology. London: Sage.
-
Chandler, Daniel (1995): ‘David Morley’s study of the Nationwide Audience (1980): A Review of the Research Literature’ [WWW document] URL
-
Chandler, Daniel (1995): ‘Socio-Orientated and Concept Orientated Families - a Correlational Study: A Review of the Research Literature’ [WWW document] URL
-
Chandler, Daniel (1995): ‘The Katz and Liebes Cross Cultural Viewing Studies: A Review of the Research Literature’ [WWW document] URL
-
Frey, J.H & S.M.Oishi (1995): How to Conduct Interviews by Telephone and in Person. London: Sage.
-
Jensen, Klaus B & Nicholas.W. Jankowski (1991): Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. London: Routledge.
-
Nichols, Paul (1991): Social Survey Methods. Oxford: Oxfam.
-
Wimmer, Roger D & Joseph.R.Dominick (1997): Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Belmont, MA: Wadsworth.
Word Count 2,026
