interview disadvantages in research

It’s too late to learn something new.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Interview in Research

Approaching the Respondent- according to the Interviewer’s Manual, the introductory tasks of the interviewer are: tell the interviewer is and whom he or she represents; telling him about what the study is, in a way to stimulate his interest. The interviewer has also ensured at this stage that his answers are confidential; tell the respondent how he was chosen; use letters and clippings of surveys in order to show the importance of the study to the respondent. The interviewer must be adaptable, friendly, responsive, and should make the interviewer feel at ease to say anything, even if it is irrelevant.

Dealing with Refusal- there can be plenty of reasons for refusing for an interview, for example, a respondent may feel that surveys are a waste of time, or may express anti-government feeling. It is the interviewer’s job to determine the reason for the refusal of the interview and attempt to overcome it.

Conducting the Interview- the questions should be asked as worded for all respondents in order to avoid misinterpretation of the question. Clarification of the question should also be avoided for the same reason. However, the questions can be repeated in case of misunderstanding. The questions should be asked in the same order as mentioned in the questionnaire, as a particular question might not make sense if the questions before they are skipped. The interviewers must be very careful to be neutral before starting the interview so as not to lead the respondent, hence minimizing bias.

listing out the advantages of interview studies, which are noted below:

• It provides flexibility to the interviewers
• The interview has a better response rate than mailed questions, and the people who cannot read and write can also answer the questions.
• The interviewer can judge the non-verbal behavior of the respondent.
• The interviewer can decide the place for an interview in a private and silent place, unlike the ones conducted through emails which can have a completely different environment.
• The interviewer can control over the order of the question, as in the questionnaire, and can judge the spontaneity of the respondent as well.

There are certain disadvantages of interview studies as well which are:

• Conducting interview studies can be very costly as well as very time-consuming.
• An interview can cause biases. For example, the respondent’s answers can be affected by his reaction to the interviewer’s race, class, age or physical appearance.
• Interview studies provide less anonymity, which is a big concern for many respondents.
• There is a lack of accessibility to respondents (unlike conducting mailed questionnaire study) since the respondents can be in around any corner of the world or country.

INTERVIEW AS SOCIAL INTERACTION

The interview subjects to the same rules and regulations of other instances of social interaction. It is believed that conducting interview studies has possibilities for all sorts of bias, inconsistency, and inaccuracies and hence many researchers are critical of the surveys and interviews. T.R. William says that in certain societies there may be patterns of people saying one thing, but doing another. He also believes that the responses should be interpreted in context and two social contexts should not be compared to each other. Derek L. Phillips says that the survey method itself can manipulate the data, and show the results that actually does not exist in the population in real. Social research becomes very difficult due to the variability in human behavior and attitude. Other errors that can be caused in social research include-

• deliberate lying, because the respondent does not want to give a socially undesirable answer;
• unconscious mistakes, which mostly occurs when the respondent has socially undesirable traits that he does not want to accept;
• when the respondent accidentally misunderstands the question and responds incorrectly;
• when the respondent is unable to remember certain details.

Apart from the errors caused by the responder, there are also certain errors made by the interviewers that may include-

• errors made by altering the questionnaire, through changing some words or omitting certain questions;
• biased, irrelevant, inadequate or unnecessary probing;
• recording errors, or consciously making errors in recording.

Bailey, K. (1994). Interview Studies in Methods of social research. Simonand Schuster, 4th ed. The Free Press, New York NY 10020.Ch8. Pp.173-213.

We believe in sharing knowledge with everyone and making a positive change in society through our work and contributions. If you are interested in joining us, please check our ‘About’ page for more information

• Humanism, Nationalism, and Cultural Evolution: The Interplay of Western Influence and Indian Identity
• Chromolithography in Bhatisuda
• Mobilizing Against GM Crops: Local and Global Activism in India, South Africa, and Brazil
• An Interview with Author Umar Siddiqui: Insights into Stylistic About Style
• The Charak Festival: Challenging caste identity and reclaiming god

The Guide to Interview Analysis

• What is Interview Analysis?
• Advantages of Interviews in Research

Introduction

Interview disadvantages compared to other data collection methods.

• Disadvantages of different interview methods

Psychological effects in interviews

• Ethical Considerations in Interviews
• Preparing a Research Interview
• Recruitment & Sampling for Research Interviews
• Interview Design
• How to Formulate Interview Questions
• Rapport in Interviews
• Social Desirability Bias
• Interviewer Effect
• Types of Research Interviews
• Face-to-Face Interviews
• Focus Group Interviews
• Email Interviews
• Telephone Interviews
• Stimulated Recall Interviews
• Interviews vs. Surveys
• Interviews vs Questionnaires
• Interviews and Interrogations
• How to Transcribe Interviews?
• Verbatim Transcription
• Clean Interview Transcriptions
• Manual Interview Transcription
• Automated Interview Transcription
• How to Annotate Research Interviews?
• Formatting and Anonymizing Interviews
• Analyzing Interviews
• Coding Interviews
• Reporting & Presenting Interview Findings

Disadvantages of Interviews in Research

Interviews are a staple method for data collection in qualitative research , and they are celebrated for capturing rich, nuanced insights. But beneath the surface lie potentially critical hidden flaws that could skew the information. This article delves into the key disadvantages associated with the interview process in qualitative research, particularly when conducting interviews in person, whether through structured interviews, unstructured interviews , or other interview formats.

It is unarguable that interviews convey the densest and deepest information when it comes to data collection. While other data collection methods , such as surveys or focus groups , provide valuable insights and a wider net of information, they do not provide the deeper understanding that interviews do. Nevertheless, no method is perfect and some disadvantages can permeate and lower the quality of collected information. This can go from poor questioning like asking questions that will not give any insight into the research project or psychological effects where the interviewer unconsciously manipulates the participant's responses.

Interviews are a widely used qualitative research method, offering a deeper understanding of participants’ experiences and providing valuable insights that other data collection methods , such as surveys or quantitative methods, might not capture. However, while interviews provide a wealth of qualitative data , they also come with a set of disadvantages that qualitative researchers must navigate carefully.

Time-consuming

One of the most significant disadvantages of interviews is that they are time-consuming. The interview process involves several stages, each demanding substantial time. Qualitative researchers must plan and design the interviews meticulously, ensuring that the interview questions are well-crafted to elicit meaningful responses. Conducting qualitative research often requires scheduling in-person or online interviews, which can be logistically challenging, especially when participants are spread across different locations or have limited availability.

During the interview itself, whether it’s a one-on-one interview , a panel interview, or even a phone interview , the process requires careful attention to detail. Researchers must take the time to build rapport , ask follow-up questions, and seek clarification to fully understand participants' responses. After the interview, the transcription and data analysis stages are equally time-intensive. This resource-intensive nature of interviews can limit the number of interviews a research team can conduct, potentially affecting the breadth of data collected and the overall scope of the research project.

Limited anonymity

Interviews, especially face-to-face interview s, often require participants to share personal experiences and opinions in a setting where anonymity is limited. Unlike other data collection methods, such as surveys or online questionnaires, interviews do not provide the same level of anonymity, which can affect participants' willingness to share openly. This is particularly true in research projects that involve sensitive topics or require participants to disclose personal or potentially stigmatizing information.

The lack of anonymity can lead to social desirability bias , where participants modify their responses to align with what they perceive as socially acceptable or to avoid judgment. This limitation can result in data that is less reflective of participants' true thoughts and feelings, thus affecting the quality of the qualitative data collected. Qualitative researchers must emphasize informed consent and confidentiality to encourage honest and open responses, though this does not eliminate the impact of limited anonymity.

Resource-intensive

Conducting interviews requires significant resources, including time, money, and skilled personnel. This resource-intensive nature is a major disadvantage, particularly for smaller research teams or projects with limited budgets. In-person interviews, for example, may require travel expenses, venue bookings, and equipment for recording, all of which add to the overall cost of the research. Even online interviews, while potentially less costly, require reliable technology and internet access, as well as the time and effort needed to schedule and conduct the interviews.

The resource demands extend beyond the interview itself to the data analysis phase. Transcribing interviews is a time-consuming and labour-intensive process, often requiring additional resources such as transcription software or professional transcribers. Moreover, interview analysis , particularly in complex research projects, requires sophisticated software and trained analysts, further adding to the costs.

Potential for inaccurate recall

Interviews often rely on participants’ ability to recall past experiences, opinions, or events. However, human memory is fallible, and participants may provide inaccurate or incomplete accounts during the interview process. Participants may unintentionally omit details, reconstruct events differently based on current understandings, or even blend multiple experiences into a single narrative.

In some research contexts, this issue is particularly problematic, such as in retrospective studies where accurate recall is crucial for understanding the phenomena under investigation. Qualitative researchers can mitigate this risk by using techniques such as triangulation, where information from interviews is cross-checked with other data sources, or by employing memory aids, such as timelines, to help participants recall events more accurately. In qualitative research, interviews create data in the moment, reflecting the participant's current perspective and voice. However, these can change over time.

Cultural and language barriers

In cross-cultural research, interviews can present challenges related to language differences and cultural nuances. These barriers can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or even offences, which can compromise the quality of the data collected. For instance, certain questions or topics might be perceived differently in various cultural contexts, leading to responses that are influenced by cultural norms rather than the participant’s thoughts or experiences.

Language barriers are particularly challenging in qualitative research, where the richness of the data often depends on nuanced expression and detailed description. When participants are not fluent in the language of the interview, or when translations are required, there is a risk that the original meaning of responses will be lost or altered. Qualitative researchers must be sensitive to these issues and consider involving bilingual interviewers or cultural mediators to ensure that the data collected is as accurate and representative as possible.

Take your interviews to another level with ATLAS.ti

Turn your transcriptions into key insights with our powerful tools. Download a free trial today.

Ethical considerations and informed consent

Conducting interviews, particularly on sensitive topics, raises important ethical considerations . Researchers must obtain informed consent from participants, ensuring that they fully understand the purpose of the research, how their data will be used, and their right to withdraw from the study at any time. However, the process of obtaining informed consent can be complex, particularly in cases where power dynamics are at play, such as in interviews with vulnerable populations or in hierarchical organizations.

Moreover, the personal interaction inherent in interviews can raise ethical concerns around privacy and confidentiality. Participants may share sensitive information during an interview that they later regret or that could have negative consequences if disclosed. Qualitative researchers must navigate these ethical challenges carefully, balancing the need to collect valuable insights with the responsibility to protect participants’ rights and well-being.

Disadvantages of different types of interviews

When analyzing the disadvantages of interviews in different formats like focus groups, telephone interviews, emails, and face-to-face settings, it's essential to consider both logistical and methodological challenges.

Focus groups

In focus groups , one major disadvantage is the potential for dominant participants to skew the conversation. Some individuals naturally speak more than others, and their opinions may overshadow quieter members. This dominance can distort the group’s dynamics and suppress diverse perspectives. Additionally, focus groups are prone to groupthink, where participants feel pressure to conform to the majority opinion rather than express their true thoughts. This social conformity can limit the authenticity of the data collected.

The success of focus groups heavily depends on the moderator’s ability to balance the conversation and engage all participants equally, which can be challenging. Poor moderation may lead to some participants feeling excluded or less willing to contribute. Another drawback is the logistical difficulty of scheduling sessions that work for multiple people. Finding a common time for everyone can delay the process and reduce participation. Finally, focus groups often limit the depth of responses because participants must share time, preventing a more comprehensive exploration of individual perspectives.

Face-to-face interviews

Face-to-face interviews provide the richest data in terms of depth and personal connection, but they are not without drawbacks. One significant disadvantage is the time-consuming nature of these interviews. Coordinating schedules, arranging locations, and conducting in-person meetings can take up a considerable amount of time, both for the researcher and the participants. This process can be especially challenging if travel is involved. Another limitation is the potential for social desirability bias. When participants are sitting directly in front of an interviewer, they may feel pressure to give socially acceptable responses rather than expressing their true thoughts. This can skew the data and reduce its authenticity. Face-to-face interviews also tend to be more expensive.

The costs associated with travel, venue rental, and participant compensation can add up, making this method less feasible for larger-scale studies. Additionally, interviewer bias can inadvertently influence the participant’s responses. Non-verbal cues, facial expressions, or even the tone of voice from the interviewer can shape how the participant answers, potentially impacting the data. Finally, logistical challenges, such as finding a comfortable, neutral, and private space for sensitive interviews, can affect the quality of the responses, especially if participants feel uncomfortable or rushed.

Telephone interviews

Telephone interviews , while convenient, present several unique challenges. One of the biggest limitations is the absence of visual cues. Without body language or facial expressions, it becomes more difficult for interviewers to gauge emotions, discomfort, or hesitations, which can provide valuable context. The lack of visual connection also makes it harder to establish rapport with participants, potentially leading to shorter, less engaging conversations. This medium can feel impersonal, and distractions in the participant’s environment can further reduce their focus and engagement. Technical issues, such as poor call quality or dropped connections, can interrupt the flow of the interview and lead to incomplete or misunderstood responses. Telephone interviews are often shorter than face-to-face ones, as participants tend to give briefer responses without the same level of engagement. This can limit the richness of the data collected. Participants may hesitate to discuss sensitive topics over the phone, leading to less candid responses.

During interviews, several psychological effects can emerge that could influence both the interviewer's and the participant's behaviour and responses. Here are some key psychological effects to consider and reflect on:

Social desirability bias

Social desirability bias occurs when participants adjust their responses to align with what they believe is socially acceptable or favourable in the eyes of the interviewer. This is particularly common in interviews where sensitive or controversial topics are discussed. Participants might downplay behaviours or opinions they perceive as undesirable and emphasize those they believe are more acceptable. This can lead to inaccurate or skewed data, as the true feelings or behaviours of the participant are not fully revealed.

The Hawthorne effect

A peculiar disadvantage of interviews is what's known as the "Hawthorne effect." This is similar to the social desirability bias as it occurs when participants alter their behaviour simply because they know they're being observed or interviewed. Named after a series of studies in the 1920s at the Hawthorne Works factory (Levitt & List, 2011), this effect can lead participants to give answers they think the interviewer wants to hear or to behave differently during the interview than they would in their everyday lives. Essentially, the very act of being interviewed can change how people respond, making it tricky to get entirely authentic data.

The Hawthorne effect is named after a series of studies conducted at Chicago's Western Electric Hawthorne Works factory in the 1920s-1930s. Researchers were investigating how different working conditions, like lighting levels, affected worker productivity. They found that productivity improved whenever any change was made, even when the conditions were actually worsened, simply because the workers knew they were being observed. This effect showed that the mere presence of researchers and attention to workers' activities could influence behaviour, leading to increased productivity regardless of the specific changes made.

The telephone effect

The "telephone effect" occurs when the lack of visual context can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or a loss of subtle emotional cues. Unlike face-to-face interviews , where body language, facial expressions, and other non-verbal cues play a significant role in communication, phone or virtual interviews rely heavily on voice alone. As a result, the richness of the data might be compromised, making it harder for the interviewer to fully grasp the participant's emotions or intentions.

One famous example of the "telephone effect" impacting data collection is the Hite Report on female sexuality, conducted by Shere Hite in the 1970s. While the report was groundbreaking in its findings, Hite collected much of her data through written questionnaires rather than face-to-face interviews (Shere, 1976). This reliance on non-personal communication methods, similar to the "telephone effect," may have led to some misinterpretations or a lack of depth in responses, as participants could not clarify their thoughts or emotions in real-time with an interviewer. Critics argued that the lack of direct interaction might have affected the authenticity and richness of the data.

Recall bias

Recall bias happens when participants have difficulty remembering past events, leading to incomplete or altered recollections. This bias can be particularly problematic in interviews, as the quality of qualitative data often relies on participants’ ability to provide detailed accounts of their experiences. Participants may unintentionally omit details, blend multiple events, or reconstruct memories based on their beliefs or emotions. This can lead to data that is not fully reliable or representative.

Paradox of self-disclosure

The "paradox of self-disclosure." During interviews, participants might start guarded but gradually become more open as they build rapport with the interviewer. Interestingly, this can sometimes lead to them sharing more personal or sensitive information than originally intended. However, after the interview, participants might experience "disclosure regret," where they feel uncomfortable or worried about having shared too much. This phenomenon can impact participants' feelings toward their involvement in the study and affect their responses if follow-up interviews are conducted.

The paradox of self-disclosure was evident in Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1973), where participants gradually disclosed more about themselves and adopted behaviours they might not have anticipated. As the simulated prison environment intensified, some participants (playing the role of guards) began to exhibit increasingly aggressive behaviour, while others (playing the role of prisoners) became more submissive. Many of the participants later expressed regret or discomfort with how deeply they had engaged in their roles and the personal aspects of themselves they revealed during the experiment, highlighting the paradox where initial openness led to uncomfortable self-disclosure as the study progressed.

Interviews are a powerful qualitative research method that can provide deep insights into human experiences and behaviours but come with disadvantages. The interview process is time-consuming and resource-intensive. Additionally, the lack of anonymity and the challenges of cross-cultural and language barriers further complicate the use of interviews in qualitative research.

Despite these challenges, interviews remain a valuable tool in the qualitative researcher's arsenal, particularly when the research question demands a deeper understanding of complex phenomena. However, qualitative researchers must be mindful of the disadvantages of interviews and take steps to mitigate these challenges wherever possible, ensuring that the data collected is both of high quality and ethically sound. By carefully considering these factors, research teams can conduct interviews that provide valuable insights while minimizing the associated risks and limitations.

• Hite, Shere. (1976). The Hite report : a nationwide study on female sexuality. New York :Macmillan,
• Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2011). Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.1.224
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243-256.

 Use ATLAS.ti at every step of your interviews

From analyzing your transcript to the key insights, ATLAS.ti is there for you. See how with a free trial.

Advantages and disadvantages of interviews

This comprehensive article aims to assess the advantages and disadvantages of interviews in research and recruitment. There is no doubt that interview is often used by both researchers and recruiters for data collection and assessing suitable job applicants. It is indeed a very effective tool for applicant selection and data collection.

Definition of Interviews

According to Soanes (2002) an interview is a spoken examination of an applicant for a job or college place. According to Kahn and Cannell 1957, cited in Saunders et al. (2007) an interview is a purposeful discussion between two or more people. It involves two or more people exchanging information in the form of questions and answers.

The purpose of an interview for employers is to evaluate the skills, and experience of job applicants. It is also a chance for the applicants to learn more about the job and the organisation. In research, the purpose of an interview is to collect primary data from research respondents.

Types of interviews

Both researchers and HR professionals use different types of interviews e.g. fully structured interviews, unstructured interviews, and semi-structured interviews.

In a structured interview, the interviewer presents each respondent with the same questions in the same order. On the other hand, semi structured interviews consist of both close-ended and open-ended questions.

Unstructured interviews are called in-depth interview. In this type of interview, the researchers may have a checklist of topics to cover in questioning, but they are free to word such questions as the wish.

Advantages and disadvantages of interviews in research

The use of interviews can help researchers collect valid and reliable data that are relevant to their research aims and objectives. However, interviews are not without some limitations.

Advantages of interviews in research

Interview is one of the most widely used methods of collecting primary data in qualitative research. By using it, researchers can collect qualitative and in-depth data. As many people say, the easiest way to get information from someone is simply to ask them!

Interview helps researchers understand the body language and facial expressions of the research respondents. It can also be very useful to understand their personal opinions, beliefs, and values.

Researchers can establish good rapport with research participants. This can make the latter feel comfortable and engaged in the process which should eventually generate very good responses.

Disadvantages of interviews in research

Interviews are time consuming. Each interview may consume a considerable amount of time. In addition, researchers need to collect responses, code and organise them, and finally analyse them for the final reporting purpose.

Interviews can produce biased responses. Interviewers and their view of the world may affect the responses of the interviewees. This can impact on the outcome positively  or negatively.

Interviews can be expensive as well. For instance, to get the best responses from the participants, the researchers need to be skilful in conducting interviews. However, this may not be the case with many new researchers. Therefore, they may need to have some kind of training on how to conduct interviews. And training often costs a lot of money!

Advantages and disadvantages of interviews in recruitment

Hiring the right people for a business is a challenging task. Therefore, HR professionals often use a variety of techniques to attract and select the most suitable candidates. Interview is indeed one of those techniques.

HR professionals use different types of interviews. However, this article explores some of the advantages and disadvantages of interviews in general.

Advantages of interviews in recruitment

There are a number of advantages of interviews from the perspectives of both an applicant and a hiring organisation. For example:

Interviews allow job applicants to demonstrate practical evidence of their attributes. They can speak freely and describe their special skills that make them a good fit for the advertised position. They can also ask the interviewers questions about the job and the organisation. And finally, they can decide if they should take up the job.

On the other hand, interviews help employers assess an applicant’s abilities to do a job.  Employers can provide applicants with more details pertaining to the job and the associated responsibilities. It is also an opportunity for them to give a positive impression of the company to the applicants (CIPD, 2023). 

Disadvantages of interviews in recruitment

There are a number of disadvantages of interviews from the perspectives of both an applicant and an organisation. For example:

Interviews are sometimes difficult for some people. They may feel very uncomfortable and anxious which may lead to a poor performance in the interview. They may also be disappointed when they face irrelevant questions from the interviewers.

On the other hand, organisations face certain challenges too. For example, an interview alone may not be effective enough to select the best candidates. Likewise, organisations also need to spend a lot of time for the preparations of the interview. Interviews are generally expensive and there is a possibility that the interviewers may be biased in their assessment of the applicants. 

Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of interviews

Interviews can be daunting for job applicants, researchers, and research participants. However, with the right preparation and practice, they can easily get the best out of it.

We hope the article on the ‘Advantages and disadvantages of interviews’ has been helpful which has addressed interviews in two contexts i.e. ‘advantages and disadvantages of interviews in research’ and ‘advantages and disadvantages of interviews in recruitment’.

You may also like reading Advantages and disadvantages of focus groups . Other relevant articles for you are:

Differences between recruitment and selection

Advantages and disadvantages of convenience sampling

Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research

How to become an airline cabin crew

Advantages and disadvantages of a private limited company

If you liked any of these articles, please feel free to share links on social media to support our work.

Last update: 13 January 2023

References:

CIPD (2023) Recruitment: an overview, Available from http://www.cipd.co.uk/hrresources/factsheets (Accessed 13 January 2023)

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students, 4 th edition, UK: Pearson Education Limited

Soanes, K. (2002) Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, 9 th edition, New York: OUP

Author: M Rahman

M Rahman writes extensively online and offline with an emphasis on business management, marketing, and tourism. He is a lecturer in Management and Marketing. He holds an MSc in Tourism & Hospitality from the University of Sunderland. Also, graduated from Leeds Metropolitan University with a BA in Business & Management Studies and completed a DTLLS (Diploma in Teaching in the Life-Long Learning Sector) from London South Bank University.

Related Posts

Performance appraisal – objectives and process, who are line managers role of line managers.

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Interviews in Social Research: Advantages and Disadvantages

The strengths of unstructured interviews are that they are respondent led, flexible, allow empathy and can be empowering, the limitations are poor reliability due to interviewer characteristics and bias, time, and low representativeness.

Table of Contents

Last Updated on November 20, 2024 by Karl Thompson

An interview involves an interviewer asking questions verbally to a respondent. Interviews involve a more direct interaction between the researcher and the respondent than questionnaires. Interviews can either be conducted face to face, via phone, video link or social media.

This post has primarily been written for students studying the Research Methods aspect of A-level sociology, but it should also be useful for students studying methods for psychology, business studies and maybe other subjects too!

Types of interview

Structured or formal interviews are those in which the interviewer asks the interviewee the same questions in the same way to different respondents. This will typically involve reading out questions from a pre-written and pre-coded structured questionnaire, which forms the interview schedule. The most familiar form of this is with market research, where you may have been stopped on the street with a researcher ticking boxes based on your responses.

Unstructured or Informal interviews (also called discovery interviews) are more like a guided conversation. Here the interviewer has a list of topics they want the respondent to talk about, but the interviewer has complete freedom to vary the specific questions from respondent to respondent, so they can follow whatever lines of enquiry they think are most appropriated, depending on the responses given by each respondent.

Semi-Structured interviews are those in which respondents have a list of questions, but they are free to ask further, differentiated questions based on the responses given. This allows more flexibility that the structured interview yet more structure than the informal interview.

Group interviews – Interviews can be conducted either one to one (individual interviews) or in a a group, in which the interviewer interviews two or more respondents at a time. Group discussions among respondents may lead to deeper insight than just interviewing people along, as respondents ‘encourage’ each other.

Focus groups are a type of group interview in which respondents are asked to discuss certain topics.

Interviews: key terms

The Interview Schedule – A list of questions or topic areas the interviewer wishes to ask or cover in the course of the interview. The more structured the interview, the more rigid the interiew schedule will be. Before conducting an interview it is usual for the reseracher to know something about the topic area and the respondents themselves, and so they will have at least some idea of the questions they are likely to ask: even if they are doing ‘unstructred interviews’ an interviewer will have some kind of interview schedule, even if it is just a list of broad topic areas to discuss, or an opening question.

Transcription of interviews -Transcription is the process of writing down (or typing up) what respondents say in an interview. In order to be able to transcribe effectively interviews will need to be recorded.

The problem of Leading Questions – In Unstructured Interviews, the interviewer should aim to avoid asking leading questions.

The Strengths and Limitations of Unstructured Interviews 

The strengths of unstructured interviews

The key strength of unstructured interviews is good validity , but for this to happen questioning should be as open ended as possible to gain genuine, spontaneous information rather than ‘rehearsed responses’ and questioning needs to be sufficient enough to elicit in-depth answers rather than glib, easy answers.

Respondent led – unstructured interviews are ‘respondent led’ – this is because the researcher listens to what the respondent says and then asks further questions based on what the respondent says. This should allow respondents to express themselves and explain their views more fully than with structured interviews.

Flexibility – the researcher can change his or her mind about what the most important questions are as the interview develops. Unstructured Interviews thus avoid the imposition problem – respondents are less constrained than with structured interviews or questionnaires in which the questions are written in advance by the researcher. This is especially advantageous in group interviews, where interaction between respondents can spark conversations that the interviewer hadn’t thought would of happened in advance, which could then be probed further with an unstructured methodology.

Rapport and empathy – unstructured interviews encourage a good rapport between interviewee and interviewer. Because of their informal nature, like guided conversations, unstructured interviews are more likely to make respondents feel at ease than with the more formal setting of a structured questionnaire or experiment. This should encourage openness, trust and empathy.

Checking understanding – unstructured interviews also allow the interviewer to check understanding. If an interviewee doesn’t understand a question, the interviewer is free to rephrase it, or to ask follow up questions to clarify aspects of answers that were not clear in the first instance.

Unstructured interviews are good for sensitive topics because they are more likely to make respondents feel at ease with the interviewer. They also allow the interviewer to show more sympathy (if required) than with the colder more mechanical quantitative methods.

They are good for finding out why respondents do not do certain things . For example postal surveys asking why people do not claim benefits have very low response rates, but informal interviews are perfect for researching people who may have low literacy skills.

Empowerment for respondents – the researcher and respondents are on a more equal footing than with more quantitative methods. The researcher doesn’t assume they know best. This empowers the respondents. Feminists researchers in particular believe that the unstructured interview can neutralise the hierarchical, exploitative power relations that they believe to be inherent in the more traditional interview structure. They see the traditional interview as a site for the exploitation and subordination of women, with the interviewers potentially creating outcomes against their interviewees’ interests. In traditional interview formats the interviewer directs the questioning and takes ownership of the material; in the feminist (unstructured) interview method the woman would recount her experiences in her own words with the interviewer serving only as a guide to the account.

Practical advantages – there are few practical advantages with this method, but compared to full-blown participant observation, they are a relatively quick method for gaining in-depth data. They are also a good method to combine with overt participant observation in order to get respondents to further explain the meanings behind their actions. So in short, they are impractical, unless you’re in the middle of a year long Participant Observation study (it’s all relative!).

The Limitations of unstructured interviews

The main theoretical disadvantage is the lack of reliability – unstructured Interviews lack reliability because each interview is unique – a variety of different questions are asked and phrased in a variety of different ways to different respondents.

They are also difficult to repeat, because the s uccess of the interview depends on the bond of trust between the researcher and the respondent – another researcher who does not relate to the respondent may thus get different answers. Group interviews are especially difficult to repeat, given that the dynamics of the interview are influenced not just by the values of the researcher, but also by group dynamics. One person can change the dynamic of a group of three or four people enormously.

Validity can be undermined in several ways:

• respondents might prefer to give rational responses rather than fuller emotional ones (it’s harder to talk frankly about emotions with strangers)
• respondents may not reveal their true thoughts and feelings because they do not coincide with their own self-image, so they simply withhold information
• respondents may give answers they think the interviewer wants to hear, in attempt to please them!

We also need to keep in mind that interviews can only tap into what people SAY about their values, beliefs and actions, we don’t actually get to see these in action, like we would do with observational studies such as Participant Observation. This has been a particular problem with self-report studies of criminal behaviour. These have been tested using polygraphs, and follow up studies of school and criminal records and responses found to be lacking in validity, so much so that victim-surveys have become the standard method for measuring crime rather than self-report studies.

Interviewer bias might undermine the validity of unstructured interviews – this is where the values of the researcher interfere with the results. The researcher may give away whether they approve or disapprove of certain responses in their body language or tone of voice (or wording of probing questions) and this in turn might encourage or discourage respondents from being honest.

The characteristics of the interviewer might also bias the results and undermine the validity – how honest the respondent is in the course of an hour long interview might depend on the class, gender, or ethnicity of the interviewer.

Sudman and Bradburn (1974) conducted a review of literature and found that responses varied depending on the relative demographics of the interviewer and respondent. For example white interviewers received more socially acceptable responses from black respondents than they did from white respondents. Similar findings have been found with different ethnicities, age, social class and religion.

Unstructured interviews also lack representativeness – because they are time consuming, it is difficult to get a large enough sample to be representative of large populations.

It is difficult to quantify data , compare answers and find stats and trends because the data gained is qualitative.

Practical disadvantages – unstructured Interviews may take a relatively long time to conduct. Some interviews can take hours. They also need to be taped and transcribed, and in the analysis phase there may be a lot of information that is not directly relevant to one’s research topic that needs to be sifted through.

Interpersonal skills and training – A further practical problem is that some researchers may lack the interpersonal skills required to conduct informal unstructured interviews. Training might need to be more thorough for researchers undertaking unstructured interviews – to avoid the problem of interviewer bias.

Shapiro and Eberhart (1947) showed that interviewers who were more prepared to probe received fuller answers, and both response rate and extensiveness of response are greater for more experienced interviewers.

There are few ethical problems , assuming that informed consent is gained and confidentially ensured. Although having said this, the fact that the researcher is getting more in-depth data, more of an insight into who the person really is, does offer the potential for the information to do more harm to the respondent if it got into the wrong hands (but this in turn depends on the topics discussed and the exact content of the interviews.

Sociological perspectives on interviews

Interviews of any kind are not a preferred method for positivists because there is no guarantee that responses aren’t artefacts of the interview situation, rather than a reflection of underlying social reality.

If interviews must be used, Positivists prefer structured interviews that follow a standardised schedule, with each question asked to each respondent in the same way. Interviewers should be neutral, show no emotion, avoid suggesting replies, and not skip questions.

Fo r Interactionists , interviews are based on mutual participant observation. The context of the interview is intrinsic to understanding responses and no distinction between research interviews and other social interaction is recognised. Data are valid when mutual understanding between interviewer and respondent is agreed.

Interactionists prefer non-standardised interviews because they allow respondents to shape the interview according to their own world view.

Denzin (2009) goes as far as to argue that what positivists might perceive as problems with interviews are not problems, just part of the process and thus as valid as the data collected. Thus issues of self-presentation, the power relations between interviewer and respondent and opportunities for fabrication are all part of the context and part of the valid-reality that we are trying to get to.

Related Posts

For more posts on research methods please see my research methods page.

Examples of studies using interviews – Using Interviews to research education .

Participant Observation  –   A related qualitative research method – detailed class notes on overt and covert participant observation. 

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Recommended further reading: Gilbert and Stoneman (2016) Researching Social Life

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

3 thoughts on “Interviews in Social Research: Advantages and Disadvantages”

• Pingback: White Working Class Men | ReviseSociology
• Pingback: Learning to Labour by Paul Willis – Summary and Evaluation of Research Methods | ReviseSociology

Reblogged this on Urban speeches .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Your Article Library

The interview method: advantages and limitations | social research.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

After reading this article you will learn about the advantages and disadvantages of the interview method of conducting social research.

Advantages of the Interview Method :

(1) The personal interviews, compared especially to questionnaires usually yield a high percentage of returns.

(2) The interview method can be made to yield an almost perfect sample of the general population because practically everyone can be reached by and can respond to this approach. It will be remembered that the questionnaire approach is severely limited by the fact that only the literate persons can be covered by it.

Again, the observational approach is also subject to limitations because many things or facts cannot be observed on the spot.

(3) The information secured through interviews is likely to be more correct compared to that secured through other techniques. The interviewer who is present on the spot can clear up the seemingly inaccurate or irrelevant answers by explaining the questions to the informant. If the informant deliberately falsifies replies, the interviewer is able to effectively check them and use special devices to verify the replies.

(4) The interviewer can collect supplementary information about the informant’s personal characteristics and environment which is often of great value in interpreting results. Interview is a much more flexible approach, allowing for posing of new questions or check-questions if such a need arises.

Its flexibility makes the interview a superior technique for the exploration of areas where there is little basis for knowing what questions to ask and how to formulate them.

(5) In as much as the interviewer is present on the spot, he can observe the facial expressions and gestures etc., of the informants as also the existing pressures obtaining in the interview-situation. The facility of such observations helps the interviewer to evaluate the meaning of the verbal replies given by informants.

For example, hesitation, particular inhibitive reactions etc., may give rise to certain doubts about the reliability of the responses and the interviewer may then ask indirect questions to verify his doubts.

(6) Scoring and test-devices can be used, the interviewer acting as experimenter. At the same time, visual stimuli to which the informant may react can be presented.

(7) The use of interview method ensures greater number of usable returns compared to other methods. Returned visits to complete items on the schedule or to correct mistakes can usually be made without annoying the informant.

(8) The interviewer can usually control which person or persons will answer the questions. This is not possible in the mailed questionnaire approach. If so desired and warranted group discussions may also be held.

(9) A personal interview may take long enough to allow the informant to become oriented to the topic under investigation. Thus, recall of relevant information is facilitated. The informant can be made to devote more time if, as is the case, the interviewer is present on the spot to elicit and record the information.

The interviewer’s presence is a double headed weapon, the advantageous aspect of it being that face-to-face contact provides enough stimulation to the respondent to probe deeper within himself. As we have suggested, interviewer acts as a catalyst.

(10) The interviewer may catch the informant off his guard and thus secure the most spontaneous reactions than would be the case if mailed questionnaire were used.

(11) The interview method allows for many facilities which aid on the spot adjustments and thus ensure rich response material. For example, the interviewer can carefully sandwich the questions about which the informant is likely to be sensitive.

The interviewer can also change the subject by observing informant’s reactions or give explanations if the interviewee needs them. In other words, a delicate situation can usually be handled more effectively by personal interview method.

(12) The language of the interview can be adapted to the ability or educational level of the person interviewed. Therefore, it is comparatively easy to avoid misinterpretations or misleading questions.

(13) The interview is a more appropriate technique for revealing information about complex, emotionally-laden subjects or for probing the sentiments underlying an expressed opinion.

Major Limitations of the Interview Method :

(1) In terms of cost, energy and time, the interview approach poses a heavy demand. The transportation cost and the time required to cover addresses in a large area as also possibility of non-availability or ‘not at home’, may make the interview method uneconomical and often inoperable.

(2) The efficacy of interviews depends on a thorough training and skill of interviewers as also on a rigorous supervision over them. Failing this, data recorded may be inaccurate and incomplete.

(3) The human equation may distort the returns. If an interviewer has a certain bias, he may unconsciously devise questions so as to secure confirmation of his views.

(4) The presence of the interviewer on the spot may over stimulate the respondent, sometimes even to the extent that he may give imaginary information just to make it interesting. He may tell things about which he may not himself be very sure.

He may also get emotionally involved with the interviewer and give answers that he anticipates would please the interviewer. It is also possible that the interviewer’s presence may inhibit free responses because there is no anonymity. The respondent may hesitate to give correct answers for the fear that it would adversely affect his image. Some fear of this information being used against him may grip him.

(5) In the interview method, the organization required for selecting, training and supervising a field staff is more complex.

(6) It is the usual experience that costs per interview are higher when field investigators are employed. This is especially so when the area to be covered is widely spread out.

(7) The personal interview usually takes more time. Sometimes, the interview lasts for hours on end and the interviewer cannot check the free flow of the respondent’s replies for fear that it may disrupt the ‘rapport.’ Added to this is the time spent for journeys to and fro to the addresses and the possibility of not always being able to meet them.

(8) Effective interview presupposes proper rapport with the respondent and controlling of interview atmosphere in a manner that would facilitate free and frank responses. This is often a very difficult requirement, it needs time, skills and often resources.

Secondly, it is not always possible for the interviewer to judge whether the interview atmosphere is how it should ideally be and whether or not ‘rapport’ has been established.

(9) Interviewing may also introduce systematic errors. For example, if the interviews are conducted at their homes during the day, a majority of informants will be housewives. Now if the information is to be obtained from the male members, most of the field-work will have to be done in the evening or on holidays. If this be the case, only a few hours can be used per week for interviewing.

(10) Many actions human beings carry out are not easily verbalized, but easily observed. Through observation a social process may be followed as it develops. Verbal techniques such as interview may give valuable reports, but post hoc, unless one is dealing with rather unusual respondents capable of acting and being interviewed at the same time.

Some of the prerequisites that ensure successful interviewing. The quality of interviewing depends, firstly on a proper study-design. It should be noted that even the most skilled interviewer will not be able to collect valid and useful data, if the schedule of questions is inadequate or unrelated to the objectives of research.

If a well-designed, standardized schedule can elicit the required information, a staff of ordinary men and women, properly selected, and trained, can serve well enough.

Within the limits of a study-design, there is some room for the art of interviewing to come into play. Interviewing is an art governed by certain scientific principles. The interviewer’s art consists in creating a situation wherein the respondents’ answers will be reliable and valid.

This ideal requires a permissive situation in which the respondent is encouraged to voice his frank opinion without the fear of his attitudes being revealed to others.

The basic requirement of successful interviewing, understandably, is to create a friendly atmosphere; on of trust and confidence that will put the respondent at ease. Through subsequent stages, the interviewer’s art consists in asking questions properly and intelligently, in obtaining a valid and meaningful response and in recording the responses accurately and completely.

Let us consider how the interviewer can create a friendly interview atmosphere. It is the interviewer’s approach that really does the trick. The interviewer should introduce himself briefly and explain clearly the purpose of his study.

Interviewer’s approach should be positive. His aim should be to interview everyone included in the sample. It is possible that a small proportion of respondents will be suspicious or hostile and the large number may require a little encouragement and persuasion.

Many people ar6 flattered to be selected for an interview. The interviewer should answer any legitimate questions and clear any doubt the respondent has. He should also if need be, explain that the respondent should not be afraid of being identified and that interview is not a test and that the interviewer just wants to know how people feel about certain issues and the only way to find out, is to ask them.

The interviewer’s manners should be friendly, courteous, conversational and unbiased. He should represent the golden mean — neither too grim, nor too effusive, neither too talkative nor too timid. The main idea should be to put the respondent at ease so that he will talk freely and fully.

It helps if the interview starts with the casual conversation about weather, pets or children. An informal conversational interview, above all, is dependent upon a thorough mastery by the interviewer over the actual questions in the schedule.

He should be able to ask them conversationally rather than real them stiffly. He should know what questions are coming next so that there will be no awkward disruption of smooth interaction. Fundamentally, the interviewer’s job is that of a reporter.

He should not act as an adviser, custodian of morality, curio-seeker or debator. He should not show surprise or disapproval of a respondent’s answer. He should show an interested disposition toward his respondent’s opinion. On his own, he should never divulge his own. The interviewer must keep the direction of interview in his Own hand, discouraging irrelevant conversation and trying to keep the respondent on the track.

Next, we turn to consider how the interviewer should ask his questions. The interviewer must be alert to the importance of asking each question exactly as it is worded unless the interview is unstructured. Interviewers should remember that even a slight rewording of a question can so change the stimulus as to elicit answers in a different frame of reference.

The interviewer should refrain from giving unwarranted explanation of questions because this also may change the frame of reference, or inject bias into the response. If each interviewer were permitted to vary the questions according to his sweet will, the resulting responses recorded by different interviewers may not be comparable.

If at all the interviewer has to offer any explanation to the respondents, he should offer only those that he has specifically been authorized to do. Should the respondent fail to understand the question, the interviewer may advisedly repeat it slowly and with proper emphasis.

Questions must be asked in the sequence they appear on the schedule. Varying this order will change the respondent’s frame of reference since each question sets up a frame of reference for the following questions. Thus, if the sequences vary from interviewer to interviewer, the responses will not be comparable. The interviewer must make it a point to ask every question, unless directions permit skipping a few.

It may seem that the respondent has given his opinion on a subsequent question in answering an earlier question, but he must nevertheless ask the question in order to be sure.

A question may appear to be naive or inapplicable but the interviewer should never omit asking it. Wherever necessary and appropriate, the interviewer should preface the question with certain conversational phrases to maintain continuity and tempo.

We shall now consider another important requirement of successful interviewing. It is often difficult as interviewers have often experienced, to obtain a specific complete response. This is perhaps the most difficult part of his job. Respondents often qualify or hedge their opinions.

They often answer, ‘do not know’ just to avoid thinking about the question, they misinterpret the question, divert the process of interview by launching off an irrelevant discussion or they give self-contradictory answers. In all these cases the interviewer has to probe deeper.

The test of a good interviewer is that he is alert to incomplete or nonspecific answers. Each interviewer must understand fully the overall objective of each question and what it is precisely trying to measure. A pre-test on the interviewers helps to equip them with such understanding.

The interviewer should be able to ask himself after every reply the respondent gives whether the question is completely answered. If the respondent’s answer is vague or diffuse or incomplete, effective probe questions should be asked.

The interviewer must be careful at every stage, not to suggest a possible reply, that is, the interviewer should riot ask leading questions (i.e., put words into the subject’s mouth). The “don’t know” reply is another problem of the interviewer.

Sometimes, this response may be due to a genuine lack of opinion or knowledge, but at other times it may be a cloak wittingly or unwittingly used by the interviewee to hide many attitudes, fear, reluctance, vague opinions, lack of understanding, etc. The interviewer should distinguish between the different types of’ don’t-know response’ and repeat the questions with suitable assurances.

An important consideration in successful interviewing relates to recording the responses of interviewees. There are two chief means of recording responses during the interview. If the question is a fixed alternative one, the interviewer need only mark or check an appropriate category. But if the question is open-ended, the interviewer is expected to record the response, verbatim.

On pre-coded schedules, errors and omissions in recording the replies are a frequent source of interview-error. In the midst of various tasks that the interviewer is supposed to perform in the course of interviews, viz., trying to pin the respondent down to a specific answer, remembering the sequence of questions, observing facial expressions etc., the interviewer may sometimes neglect to indicate the respondent’s reply to some item, overlook a particular question or check the wrong category, etc.

Even the best interviewer should, therefore, make it a habit to inspect each interview to make sure that it is filled in accurately and completely.

If any information is lacking he should go back and ask the respondent for it. He should correct the errors and omissions in the schedules on the spot. If he has recorded verbatim replies only sketchily, he should correct the weakness right there. It is not at all proper to wait until later in the day or until he returns home at night, since by then he may have forgotten quite a few crucial circumstances of the interview.

The interviewer should understand that the omission or inaccurate reporting of a single answer can make the entire interview worthless since the schedule is designed as an integral whole.

In reporting responses to open-ended or free answer questions, the interviewer should give complete, verbatim reporting. It may often be difficult to fulfill this requirement, but apart from obvious irrelevancies and repetitions, this should be the goal.

It is necessary that the interviewers have some idea of the coding process. This will ensure that they are able to record responses in such a manner that the coders will be able to reconstruct the whole set of responses correctly in a codified form.

The interviewer should ideally quote the respondents exactly. Paraphrasing the replies, summarizing them in one’s own words or “polishing up” any slang or cursing etc., not only might distort the respondent’s meanings and emphases but also miss the tenor of his replies.

Although it is frequently difficult to record responses verbatim without using short­hand, a few simple techniques can greatly increase the interviewer’s speed and honest reproduction.

The interviewer can ask the subject to wait until the interviewer has written the last thought but this may slow down the interview and may have certain adverse effects. In order not to slow up the interview, the interviewer should be prepared to write at the same time as the respondent talks.

This may prevent him from watching the expressions of the respondent but some adjustments have got to be made. The interviewer may also use common abbreviations. He may also use a telegraphic style of recording. In doing so, the interviewer must not make the recording incomprehensible to the coders.

One final point related to successful interviewing is, how to minimize bias introduced by the interviewer. Known as the interviewer-“bias”, it refers to systematic differences from interviewer to interviewer or occasionally systematic errors on the part of the interviewers in the selection of the samples (e.g., in quota sampling where the selection of interviewees is left to the interviewers), in asking questions, eliciting and recording responses.

Much of what we call interviewer-bias, can be more correctly described as interviewer- differences which are inherent in the fact that interviewers are human beings and not machines and thus they do not work identically or infallibly.

The fact that respondents too are human beings with differing perceptions, judgements, etc., simply enhances the differences that would occur if different interviewers were dealing with physical rather than human materials. It is too much to expect, therefore, that the interviewers will return complete, comparable and valid reports.

Even assuming an unbiased selection of respondents, bias in the interview-situation may stem from two sources:

(a) Respondent’s perception of the interviewer.

(b) Interviewer’s perception of the respondent.

‘Perception’ here points to the manner in which the relation between the interviewer and respondent is influenced and modified by their wishes, expectations and personality structure.

There is a sizable experimental evidence to prove that bias may result under certain conditions in spite of anything the interviewer may do to eliminate it. Respondents have been shown to frequently answer differently when interviewed by people from different social strata or ethnic group or nationality group. For example, the working-class respondents are less likely to talk freely to middle-class interviewers.

The magnitude of these effects naturally varies with the way in which the respondents perceive the situation. The biasing effects can often be reduced by altering the respondent’s perception of the situation, e.g., by assuring him that his identity will not be revealed but these effects can seldom be completely eliminated.

The interviewers should dress inconspicuously so that their appearance will not adversely sensitize certain categories of respondents.

The staff in a large-scale research project should be instructed to interview the respondent privately (unless the whole group is to be interviewed) so that his opinions will not be affected by the presence of some third person and to adopt an informal and conversational attitude in an effort to achieve the best possible ‘report.’

It should be noted that not all interview-biasing effects operate through the respondent’s perception by an interviewer. Some respondents may be totally immune to the most crucial biasing’s characteristics of the interviewer. The other dimension, we must consider in this context, is the interviewer’s perception of the respondent.

This is as important a source of bias as the respondent’s perception of the interviewer. No matter how standardized the schedule and how rigidly the interviewer is instructed, he still has much opportunity to exercise freedom of choice during the actual interview.

Thus, it is often his perception of the respondent that determines the manner in which he asks questions, the way in which he probes, his classification of responses to pre-coded questions and his recording of verbatim answers.

The interviewers often have strong expectations from respondents and as such, stereotypes are likely to come into play during the interview. On the basis of their past experience, judgements or prior answers received from other respondents, the interviewers may often quite unconsciously assume that they are inferior to him or that they are hostile, deceptive or ignorant, etc.

Such expectations will affect their performance. For example, a ‘No response’ from an educated well-to-do respondent may be probed into on the assumption that an opinion may be lurking somewhere or the interviewer may think that the respondents do not mean what they say.

Experiments have shown that the interviewers tend to select from long verbatim answers those parts that most closely conform to their expectations, beliefs or opinions and discard the rest.

An important source of bias arises from the interviewer’s perception of the situation. If he sees the results of the study as a possible threat to his interests, he is likely to introduce bias. Such difficulties can be overcome by proper motivation and supervision.

The interviewers being human, such biasing’s factors can never be overcome completely. Of Course, their effects can be reduced by standardizing the interview so that the interviewer has as little free choice as possible. If interviewers are given clear and standard instructions on questioning procedures, on the classification of responses etc., their biases will have lesser chances of operation.

It should not be overlooked, however, that if the interviewer’s freedom is restricted, correspondingly, the opportunities for effective use of his insight are restricted too. The more responsibilities the interviewer is given for questioning and evaluating the respondent’s opinions, the more likely it is that bias will result. This calls for a very careful selection of some middle course.

In so far as bias, in the sense of different interviewers not returning exactly the same responses from equivalent respondents, can never be totally eliminated, the main responsibility of the director of the research project is to select, train and supervise his staff in such a way that any net result of bias will be at a minimum.

He must be aware of the possibilities of bias at various points so that he is in a position to discount their effects in his analysis.

Related Articles:

• Interview Schedule : Meaning, Uses and Limitations
• Interview Techniques for Doing a Research

Techniques , Research , Social Research , The Interview Method

Comments are closed.

Institutvert.org

interview research advantages and disadvantages

Interview research is a widely used method in various fields to gather valuable information and insights directly from individuals. This article explores the advantages and disadvantages of interview research, highlighting its strengths and limitations in data collection. By understanding the benefits and drawbacks of this research method, researchers can make informed decisions about when and how to incorporate interviews in their studies.

1. Rich and detailed data: Interview research allows for in-depth exploration of topics, providing detailed and nuanced information that goes beyond surface-level understanding. Through open-ended questions, participants have the freedom to express their thoughts and perspectives, enabling researchers to gain a holistic view of the subject matter.

2. Flexibility: Unlike rigid survey questionnaires, interviews offer the flexibility to adapt questions based on responses. Researchers can probe further, clarify ambiguities, and explore unexpected avenues that arise during the conversation. This adaptability allows for a more comprehensive examination of the research topic.

3. Personal connection: By conducting interviews, researchers can establish a personal connection with participants. Building rapport and trust is crucial in eliciting open and honest responses. Participants are more likely to share sensitive information or express dissenting opinions in a one-on-one interview setting, where they feel comfortable and validated.

4. Exploration of emotions and experiences: Interviews provide a platform for participants to express their emotions and share personal experiences. This allows researchers to delve deeper into the subjective aspects of a phenomenon, gaining insights into the underlying motivations, beliefs, and experiences that shape individuals’ behaviors and perspectives.

Disadvantages

1. Time-consuming: Conducting interviews can be a time-intensive process. From preparing interview questions to scheduling interviews and analyzing the collected data, it requires a significant time commitment. Researchers must allocate enough resources to ensure thoroughness while balancing other demands on their time.

2. Sampling bias: Interviews rely on a small sample size, which may not be representative of the larger population. This can introduce sampling bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Researchers should carefully consider sampling methods and aim for diverse and inclusive participant selection to minimize this limitation.

3. Interviewer bias: Researchers may unintentionally influence participant responses through their body language, tone of voice, or unintentional cues. This can lead to biased or skewed data. To mitigate this risk, researchers should receive appropriate training in conducting interviews and strive for objectivity in their interactions.

4. Subjectivity: As interviews are subjective interactions between the researcher and participant, interpretations of data can be influenced by the researcher’s preconceptions and biases. Researchers should be aware of their own biases and employ techniques such as peer debriefing or member checking to validate their interpretations.

Benefits of Knowing the Interview Research Advantages and Disadvantages

By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of interview research, researchers can make informed decisions about its inclusion in their studies. This knowledge empowers researchers to:

• Choose appropriate research methods: Researchers can determine when to use interviews based on their research goals and the type of data required. They can weigh the advantages and disadvantages against other research methods and select the most suitable approach.
• Avoid common pitfalls: Knowing potential limitations, such as sampling and interviewer biases, allows researchers to implement strategies for mitigating them. This contributes to the reliability and validity of the research findings.
• Enhance data analysis: Understanding the richness of interview data, coupled with its subjective nature, researchers can employ various analytical techniques to extract meaningful insights. This contributes to the depth and comprehensiveness of the research outcomes.

In conclusion, interview research offers valuable advantages in gathering rich and detailed data, flexibility in questioning, establishing personal connections, and exploring emotions and experiences. However, it also presents disadvantages such as being time-consuming, potential sampling and interviewer biases, and subjectivity in interpretation. By recognizing these strengths and limitations, researchers can effectively utilize interview research as a powerful tool in their studies.

• a thorough list of balanced scorecard advantages and disadvantages
• unstructured interviews advantages and disadvantages
• about internet advantages and disadvantages
• 5 advantages and 5 disadvantages
• 13 traditional economy advantages and disadvantages
• interviews advantages and disadvantages
• semi structured interview advantages and disadvantages