Interviewing in qualitative research

Question two made a reference to ‘life history’ type of qualitative interview. Plummer (2001, cited on page 486) distinguishes between three types of ‘life story’ that can emerge from this process, including naturalistic (autobiographical), researched (specifically requested by researchers) and reflexive and recursive (recognizing the story as a construction partly made by the interviewer). ‘True’ life stories seem to be a media programming feature, hence totally constructed, but the emphasis is presumed to be on entertainment rather than research value.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 486-487

“Tips and skills”, on page 473, shows the ten criteria proposed by Kvale (1996) of a successful interviewer. The suggestion is that the successful interviewer must be knowledgeable, clear, sensitive, gentle and open, able to structure the interview, steer the conversation, remember what has been said, and take an active role in both interpreting and critically challenging the interviewee. Bryman (p473) adds the criteria of getting the balance right between the talking time of interviewer and interviewee; and of being sensitive to ethical concerns.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 473

In qualitative interviews, the aim is to understand the social world from the perspective of the interviewee, in their own words. The researcher will therefore encourage their participants to define the parameters of the conversation and to talk in detail, rather than imposing a standardized set of questions upon them. The essential point is that structured interviewing is a quantitative research method, so numbers of instances of pre-planned, specific items are the focus, whereas qualitative research is focussed on the respondent. Where the respondent goes, so to speak, the researcher follows. So, going off the topic is good, in that the interview is now moving in the direction of the respondent’s interests rather than the researcher’s.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 466-467

Preparing an interview guide allows you to gather responses about the same range of topics from everyone in your sample. This means that the interviewee does not have complete control over what they talk about, but as the interviewer can vary the order and phrasing of questions, this technique is still much more flexible than the structured interview. We are not talking about an interview schedule that would be prepared for a structured interview but, rather, a list of the areas that could be covered. These areas are typically generated by ‘interviewing’ yourself about your own research questions. It is also a good idea to consider which topics flow more naturally from others, so that a sequence of topics can be worked out. The tighter the sequence and closeness of topics from interview to interview, the more likely it is that a semi-structured form will be chosen by the researcher.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 469-471

The two main types of qualitative interview are the ‘unstructured’ and the ‘semi-structured’ interviews. ‘Qualitative interview’ as an expression actually covers a multitude, from interviews in ethnographic research to focus groups. The theme could be an entire life history or an oral history of specific events, apart from a more general exploration of concepts. All types of qualitative interview differ from structured interviews (such as surveys), which have a more rigidly defined format and are used more in quantitative research.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 468-469

In a highly influential article, Oakley (1981, cited on page 488) criticized the “male-stream” bias inherent in textbook guides to interviewing and said that it was morally indefensible for women to treat other women like this. She advocated a model of qualitative interviewing based on a non-hierarchical relationship between conversational partners, where rapport and reciprocity were of central importance.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 488-490

Qualitative interviewing can be a more appealing alternative to participant observation for a number of reasons. These include the fact that it is less intrusive, allows people to account for their actions in their own words, and allows the researcher to discover ideas that might not have emerged through participant observation. Not all social phenomena lend themselves to observation, which reveal themselves at certain times only. Even with participant observation, qualitative interviewing may be required to discover the participant’s interpretation of events.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 494-497

In some cases, it may be preferable to use participant observation rather than qualitative interviewing. This is often because the researcher wants to find out about deviant or illegal activities that people might not wish to disclose in an interview; the latter tends to produce selective, partial and somewhat sanitized reconstructions of events. Sometimes it is not possible to use one method alone to research our chosen concepts.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 493

It is always worthwhile to have an accurate and detailed record of what interviewees have said, and this means transcribing the data. The disadvantage of this is that it is very time consuming, but it is an absolute must. Institutions often require physical proof of gathered data, in the forms of tapes and transcripts, to be attached as an “appendix” to a dissertation. The strategies listed here are designed to help reduce the scale of this task.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 479-483

Obviously the researcher asks questions during an interview but of which type? Some questions will ask directly for information about the respondent’s attitudes or opinions, with some of these being more specific than others. It is often the case that ‘follow-up’ questions will lead to uncovering richer data, of which the “probing” question is a good example. The purpose is to find out more about a subject that the interviewee has referred to. When people mention something that sounds relevant but do not volunteer very much information, you can probe for more details by asking questions like, “Could you say a little more about that?”, for example.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 473