Interview books and papers

BOOK: (Seidman, 2006)

Bertaux (1981) has argued that those who urge educational researchers to imitate the national sciences seem to ignore one basic difference between the subjects of enquiry in the natural sciences and those in the social sciences. The subjects of inquiry in the social sciences can talk and think (8)

Recounting narratives of experience has been the major way throughout Recorded history that humans have made sense of their experience (8)

At the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the lift experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience (9)

An observer can watch behaviour and have an observational understanding but what the observer understands as a result of observation may not be all consistent with how a person views or experiences his own behaviour (9)

To understand a person’s behaviour the observer would have to gain access to the person subjective understanding knowing what meaning he or she attributes to it (10)

The way to meaning is to be able to put behaviour in context (Schutz, 1967)

Interviewing provide access to the context of people’s behaviour and thereby provides a way for researchers to understand the meaning of that behaviour (10)

A basic assumption of in-depth interviewing research is that the meaning people make of their experience affects the way they carry out that experience (Blumer, 1969)

Interview interviewing allows us to put behaviour in context and provides access to understanding their action (10)

Social abstractions like education are best understood through the experiences of the individuals whose work and lives are the stuff upon which the obstructions are built (Ferrarotti, 1981)

A researcher can approach the experience of people in education organisations through examining personal and institutional documents through observations through questionnaires surveys and a review of literature. If the researchers goal however is to understand the meaning people involved in education make of their experience the interview Provides a necessary if not completely sufficient means of inquiry (11)

Becca and Geer argue that participant observations was the single and best way to gather data about people in society however Trow argued back that for some purposes interviewing is far superior (Beck and Geer, 1957; Trow, 1957).

The adequacy of a research method depends on the purpose of the research and the questions being asked (Locke, 1989)

In many cases, research interests have many levels and as a result multiple methods may be appropriate (11)

If the researcher is interested in what it is like for students to be in the classroom what their experiences and what meaning they make out of that experience if the interest is in what Schultz (1967) calls their ‘subjective understanding’ then it seems to me the interview interviewing in most cases may be the best avenue of enquiry (11)

If students or researchers know that their choice of research is qualitative, they need to be aware that qualitative research has not been the dominant one in the history of educational research (12)

The choice of a research methodology is determined by what one is trying to learn (13)

A powerful way to gain insight into education and other social issues is through understanding the experience of those individuals whose lives reflect those issues or experiences (14)

As a method of inquiry interview interviewing is most consistent with people’s ability to make and convey meaning through language (14)

When interviewers use open-ended questions they attempt to build upon and explore participants responses. The goal is to have the participants reconstruct his or her experience within the topic under study (15)

Although interviews are dedicated to the participants meaning making process interviewers are also part of the process (Ferrarotti, 1981; Kvale, 1996; Misher, 1986) (22)

The interaction between the data gatherers and participants is inherent in the nature of interviewing (22)

It is inherent as well in other qualitative approaches such as participant observations (22-23)

One major difference however between qualitative and quantitative approaches is that in-depth interviewing we recognise and affirm the role of the instrument the human interviewer (23)

By interviewing a number of participants, we can connect their experiences and check the comments of one participant against those of others.

If the interview Structure works to allow participants to make sense to themselves as well as to the interviewer then it has gone a long way towards Building validity (23)

Interviews allow the interviewer to understand the student and teachers experiences that wouldn’t have Been able to do by other methods such as questionnaire and observations (25)

Because in-depth interviewing uses a method that is essentially open ended the preparation planning and structure are crucial (39)

Because the time and energy required of both participants and interviewers every step towards easing the logistics of the process is a step forward to focusing on the interview itself. The place time and date of the interview should be convenient and be in an environment where the participant feels comfortable (49)

The prevailing principle here is equity. The participants are giving the interviewers Something they want, therefore the interviewers must be flexible enough to accommodate the participants choice of location time and date (50)

Because hypotheses are not being tested the issue was not whether the researcher can generalise the findings of the interview study to the broader population instead research his task is to present the experience of the people here she interviews in compelling enough detail and insufficient depth that those who read the study can connect to that experience learn how it is constituted and deepen their understanding of the issues it reflects (51)

When researching multiple people, the researcher may find connections among the experiences of the individuals, such links can help the readers see patterns in that experience (52)

Through an analysis, the researcher causes those connections to the researchers attention (52)

An open ended question unlike a leading question establishes the territory to be explored while allowing the participant to take any direction here or she wants (84)

There are two types of open-ended questions. One is what Bradley (1979) calls the grand tour in which the interviewer asks the participants to reconstruct a significant segment of an experience e.g. take me through a day in your working life reconstruct your day from for me from the time you wake up to the time you go to bed There is also the mini tour in which the interviewer asked the participant to reconstruct the details of a more limited time span or particular experience (85)

It is not possible to experience what the participant experienced Schultz (1967) the closest we could come is to ask what was that experience like for you offering participants the chance to reconstruct their experience according to their own sense of what was important unguided by the interviewer (85)

Rather than interrupting participants During an interview, jot down thoughts and follow these up later doing this will not interrupt the participants train of thought instead an opportunity make him later in the interview to ask those questions (Richardson et al, 1965).

Returning to a point made by participants or returning to a phrase or comment they make is an approach known as the echo (Richardson et al, 1965; p. 157-163)

Weiss (1994; p.77-78) say it is important to return to words and phrases that serve as markers of something that may be important to our participant but for which you might not want to interrupt them at the time of telling it (86)

Some participants remember particular incidents and become deeply engrossed in reconstructing it and tell a wonderful story that conveys their experience is concrete as anything could (87)

Ask participants not just to remember their experience rather to reconstruct it (88)

Reconstruction is based partially on memory and partially on what the participant sense is as important about the event in a sense all recall is reconstruction (Thelen, 1989)

In interviewing it is better to go for the reconstruction as directly as possible (88)

Ask for concrete details of a participant lived experience before exploring attitudes and opinions about it (88)

Some forms of interviews rely on an interview guide (Yow, 1994)

This is where the interviewers arrive with a preset questions to which they want answers or about what topics they wished to gather the data (91)

Some participants will require prompting to be able to reconstruct their experiences (92)

Over the course of several interviews the interviewer may notice that several participants highlighted particular issue and therefore might want to know how other participants would respond (92)

There is no recipe for effective questions because questioning can be so context bound (93)

BOOK (Kvale, 2007)

Human beings talk with each other they interact post questions and answer questions. It is through these conversations that we get to know other people and get to learn about their experiences feelings and hopes and the world in which they live an interview offer as the opportunity for people to talk about themselves and their lived world (1)

The research interview is an interview where knowledge is constructed in the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee (1)

An interview is literally an inter-view an interchange of views between two persons conversing about a theme of common interest (5)

Qualitative interviews have previously been extensively employed in the social sciences (5)

Within education and the health sciences the interview has become a common research method in the last few decades (5)

Conversations discourses narratives are regarded as essential for obtaining knowledge of the social world (7)

Interviews have also become part of the common culture for example talk shows on TV and we have been termed an interview society by Atkinson and Silverman (1997)

The interview is a conversation that has a structure and a purpose determined by the party of the interviewer. It is a professional interaction which goes beyond the spontaneous exchange of views in everyday conversation and has become a careful questioning and listening approach with the purpose of obtaining thoroughly tested knowledge (7)

The qualitative research interview is a construction site for knowledge (7)

There are few standard rules or common methodological conventions for interviewing (8)

The qualitative interview is a key venue for exploring the ways in which subjects experience and understand their world. It provides a unique access to the live world of the subjects who in their own words describe their activities, experiences and opinions (9)

Qualitative interview research has a long history in the social sciences (9)

The interview is a powerful method of producing knowledge of the human situation (9)

The interview seeks to understand the meaning of central themes of the subject life world (11)

A qualitative research interview seeks to cover both a factual and meaning level (11)

It is necessary to listen to the explicit descriptions and to the meaning expressed as well as what he said between the lines (11)

The qualitative interview see qualitative knowledge as expressed in normal language. It does not aim at quantification (11)

On the basis of comprehensive accounts of situations and events the interviewer will be able to arrive meanings on a more concrete level instead of general opinions obtained by questions such as what is your opinion upgrading (12)

The interviewer exhibits openness to new and unexpected phenomena and responses (12)

Through open questions the interview focuses on the topic of research it is then up to the subjects to bring for the dimensions they find important by the theme of enquiry (12)

Sometimes interview is answers are sometimes ambiguous so the task of the interviewer is to clarify far as possible whether the ambiguities and contradictory statements are due to A failure of communication, therefore they could ask the question in a different way (13)

During an interview subjects themselves may discover new aspects of themes. They are describing and suddenly see relationships that they may not have been aware of earlier the questioning can this instigate processes of reflection where the meaning of themes described by the subjects are no longer the same after an interview and interview may be a learning process for the interviewee as well as for the interviewer (13)

Different interviewers using the same interview guide may produce different statements on the same themes (13)

The knowledge produced in a research interview is constituted by the interaction itself in the specific situation created between an interviewer and an interviewee (14)

The research interview is a specific professional conversation with a clear power symmetry between researcher and the subject. There does not need to be any intentional execution of power by the interviewer (14)

An interview subject is commonly regarded as an informant or a partner not as an impound opponent the interviewer poses questions in order to obtain knowledge about the interview is world and rarely enters into any arguments about the logical truth of what the interviewee says (16)

Interviewing is a process of knowledge collection and a process of knowledge construction respectively (19)

There are two metaphors for interviewing the minor metaphor. Knowledge is understood as buried and the interviewer as a minor unearth the valuable information the interviewer digs out nuggets of knowledge out of the subject pure experiences unpolluted by any leading questions. The mining conception of interviewing is close to the main stream of modern social sciences where knowledge is already there waiting to be found whereas the traveller conception is near to the anthropology and postmodern comprehension of knowledge as socially constructed (19-20)

The interview traveller in line with the original Latin meaning of conversation as wondering together with walk along side with inhabitants asking questions and encourages them to tell their own stories of their lived world and these stories unfold through the travellers interpretation in the narratives or what they bring home to audiences The journey may not only lead to new knowledge. The journey may instigate a process of reflection that leads to travel to new ways of understanding (19)

Research interviews have not been developed from any specific theory or or epistemological paradigm. We may however post hoc invoke theoretical and epistemological positions to understand the knowledge produced in interviews (20)

A positive Vet epistemology has dominated earlier social science textbooks on methodology as a truth to be found through method (21)

A strict positive list philosophy is hardly compatible with knowledge production in qualitative interviews. To a philosophy of science that takes its point of departure from the elimination of the human factor in research key aspects of the mode of understanding and qualitative research interviews appear as a methodological sources of error. A strict positive philosophy is hardly compatible with knowledge production and qualitative interviews and it is seldom explicitly advocated today (21)

Ethical issues go through the entire process of an interview investigation (24)

The very virtue of qualitative interviews is their openness (33)

Without any presentation of existing knowledge about a topic of an investigation it is difficult for both research and reader to ascertain whether the knowledge obtained by the interviews is new and this what scientific contribution to the research is (39)

The cinematic focus of the project influences what aspects of the subject matter questions are centred upon and which aspects remain in the background (39)

Familiarity with the content of investigation is not obtained only through literature and theoretical studies just hanging out in the environment where the interviews are to be conducted or given an introduction to the local language the daily routines and the power structures and so provide a sense of what the interviewee will be talking about Familiarity with the local situation may also sensitised to local ethical political issues of the community which need to be taken into account when interviewing and reporting the interviews (40)

A key factor of an interview inquiry is to develop an overview of the entire investigation before starting to interview. In this case methodological alternatives are then already built into the instruments (41)

An inter dependence there are strong into connections among the choices of methods made different stages. A decision at stage one has consequences that both open and limit the alternatives available for the next stage.(42)

An interviewer may learn throughout an investigation. The conversations with the subjects can extend an alter his or her understanding of the phenomenon being investigated.(43)

The interviewee bring forth new and unexpected aspects of the phenomenal studied and during analysis of the transcribed interviews new distinctions may be discovered. This is well in line with the purpose of an exploratory study (43)

Thus in exploratory studies, the questioning may continually improve as the researcher learns more about the topic ideally resulting in a sophisticated interviewing technique sensitive to the nuances and complexity of the topic being explored (43)

The number of research subjects necessary depends on the purpose of the study (43)

If you want to studies peoples behaviour and their interaction with their environment the observations and informal conversations of field studies would usually give more valid knowledge than merely asking subjects about their experience (45)

Pre-post – when planning an interview study it may this be appropriate to consider whether other methods may be suitable for the same theme and purpose of the project e.g. interviews are particularly suited for studying peoples understanding of the meanings of their lived world describing their experiences and self understanding and clarifying and elaborating their own perspective on their lived world. This may not be done with a survey, for example (46)

Papers:

Hofisi and Mago, 2014: Critiquing Interviewing as a Data Collection Method

Social scientists tend to use qualitative research aiming to accumulate a detailed account of human behaviour and beliefs within the contexts they occur in (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

The use of non-numerical data, this line of research seeks to explore and describe the ‘quality’ and ‘nature’ of how people behave, experience and understand. Further to linking people's actions to their beliefs (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.39).

However, interviews -compared to questionnaires- are more powerful in eliciting narrative data that allows researchers to investigate people's views in greater depth (Kvale, 1996; 2003). In a similar vein, Cohen et al (2007: 29) add that interviewing is “a valuable method for exploring the construction and negotiation of meanings in a natural setting”.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. (6th ed.). London: Routledge.

That is, the value of interviewing is not only because it builds a holistic snapshot, analyses words, reports detailed views of informants; but also, because it enables interviewees to “speak in their own voice and express their own thoughts and feelings” (Berg, 2007: 96).

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Pearson.

In the field of social science research, the usefulness of interviews has long been recognized. That is, as qualitative researchers tend to provide detailed descriptions of individuals and events in their natural settings, interviewing has ‘usually’ been thought of as a key factor in research design (Weiss, 1994).

In a similar vein, Kvale (1996) interestingly points out that, as such events are not often directly ‘observable’; talking to people would be one of the most effective methods for attaining and exploring such constructs. More specifically, as interviews are interactive, interviewers can press for complete, clear answers and can probe into any emerging topics. Hence, interviewing is expected to broaden the scope of understanding investigated phenomena, as it is a more naturalistic and less structured data collection tool (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.40).

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

According to Kvale (1996: 174) an interview is “a conversation, whose purpose is to gather descriptions of the [life-world] of the interviewee” with respect to interpretation of the meanings of the ‘described phenomena’. In a similar vein, Schostak, (2006: 54) adds that an interview is an extendable conversation between partners that aims at having an ‘in-depth information’ about a certain topic or subject, and through which a phenomenon could be interpreted in terms of the meanings, interviewees bring to it. Accumulating such meanings can be done in various ways, of which one-on-one interviews are the most common. Besides one-on-one interviews, focus groups interviewing is also popular (Marshall & Rossman, 2006) (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.40).

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Additionally, research has shown that four types of interviews are frequently employed in social sciences. The first is the structured interview, whose key feature is that it is mostly organised around a set of predetermined direct questions that require immediate, mostly ‘yes’ or ‘no’ type, responses. Thus, in such an interview, the interviewer and interviewees would have very little freedom (Berg, 2007). Accordingly, it can be argued, that this type of interviews is similar to the ‘self-administered’ quantitative questionnaire in both its form and underlying assumptions (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.40)

The second type of interviews is the open-ended (unstructured) interview. Gubrium & Holstein (2002) point out that, unlike the structured interview, this kind of interviewing is an open situation through which a greater flexibility and freedom is offered to both sides (i.e. interviewers and interviewees), in terms of planning, implementing and organising the interview content and questions (p. 35). Therefore, the interviewer here would be more “keen to follow up interesting developments and to let the interviewee elaborate on various issues” (Dörnyei, 2007: 136) (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.40)

Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Third, is the semi-structured interview, which is a more flexible version of the structured interview as “it allows depth to be achieved by providing the opportunity on the part of the interviewer to probe and expand the interviewee's responses” (Rubin & Rubin, 2005: 88). When undertaking such interviews, researchers recommend using a basic checklist (see Berg, 2007) that would help covering all relevant areas (i.e. research questions). The advantage of such a checklist, as Berg considers, is that it “allows for in-depth probing while permitting the interviewer to keep the interview within the parameters traced out by the aim of the study” (ibid,p. 39) (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.40)

As recommended by various researchers (e.g. Bell, 1987; Kvale, 1996; Berg, 2007), interviewing should be adopted as a tool for social research as it facilitates obtaining ‘direct’ explanations for human actions through a comprehensive speech interaction (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.40).

Bell, J. (1987). Doing Your Research Project: a Guide for First-time Researchers in Education and Social Science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. &Tight, M. (2006). How to Research. (3rd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Pearson.

Interviews should not only be illustrative, but reflective and critical (41). According to Blaxter et al (2006: 172), it is worthwhile doing interviews because it offers researchers the opportunity to uncover information that is “probably not accessible using techniques such as questionnaires and observations”. Moreover, they add that interviewing is not merely a data collection tool, it is rather a natural way of interaction that can take place in various situations (ibid: 177). Additionally, Dörnyei (2007: 143) argues that with the presence of the interviewer, mutual understanding can be ensured, as the interviewer may rephrase or simplify questions that were not understood by his/her interviewees. As a result, more appropriate answers and, subsequently, more accurate data will be reached. Additionally, this data can be recorded and reviewed several times by the researcher (when necessary) to help producing an accurate interview report (Berg, 2007) (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.42).

Walford (2007: 147) argues that “interviews alone are an insufficient form of data to study social life”. (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.43).

In conclusion, with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of interviews and to make my position clear, I would follow Robson (2002) and Ho (2006) who maintain that although interviewing is a powerful way of getting insights into interviewee's perceptions, it can go hand in hand with other methods “providing in-depth information about participants' inner values and beliefs” (Ho, 2006: 11). For instance, using observation as a supplement to interviews would allow researchers investigate participants' external behaviour and internal beliefs. Therefore, although it depends on the research questions, I would argue that using more than one data collection instrument would help obtaining richer data and validating the research findings (Hofisi and Mago, 2014; p.43).

Ho, D. (2006). The focus group interview: Rising the challenge in qualitative research methodology. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1): 5. 1-19.

Alshenqeeti, 2014: Interviewing as a Data Collection Method: A Critical Review

Babbie and Mouton (2011:289) define a qualitative interview as “an interaction between an interviewer and a respondent in which the interviewer has a general plan of inquiry but not a specific set of questions that must be asked in particular words and in a particular order”. An interview can also be defined as a purposeful conversation (Berg: 1989, Dexter: 1970; Guba: 1985) (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.60).

Mishler (1986) observers that an interview is a joint product of what interviewees and interviewers talk about together and how they talk with each other. The record of an interview that we researchers make and then use in our work of analysis and interpretation is a representation of that talk. (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.60)

Seidman (1998) writes that “Interviewing covers a wide range of practices” (including face-to-face, focus group interviews and telephonic interviews) (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.60)

It is important to note that interviewing techniques are determined by the theoretical underpinning of one’s approach to interviewing (Seidman, 1998) siting Kvale (1996).

Qualitative interviewing is also comprehensively discussed by Kvale (1996); Seidman (1991); Weiss (1994). Other styles of interviews include focus group interviews Greenbaum (1993); Kueger & Kasey (2000); Morgan & Krueger (1998).

Kvale in Babbie and Mouton (2011) metaphorically defines an interviewer as a “miner” or a traveller. The first metaphor implies that the interviewee has information which must be “dug out” by the interviewer while the interviewer as the “traveller” model implies that the interviewer “wanders through the landscape and enters into conversations with the people (and) explores the many domains of the country, as unknown territory or with maps, roaming freely around the territory” (ibid) (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.61)

Babbie and Mouton (2011) succinctly observe that it is very important to ask ourselves where the interview data is going to come from, before we even carry out interviews (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.61).

Patton & Mishler in Seidman (1998) emphasise the utility of life contexts in interviewing and warn that interviewers who only have a once off meeting with interviewees will be treading on “contextual ice” (Seidman: 1998) (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.61)

Babbie & Mouton (2011) advise that there is a crucial first step which must be taken in interviewing which entails formulation of “broad, overall questions to be answered”. These include “Why is the study being done? What do we hope to be able to say or prove? Are we primarily describing what has taken place in a program? Do we want to compare what has happened with some established or implied standard or (lastly do we want to determine if a program has made a difference, a cause and effect type question”) (ibid). These key questions are very important and serve as pre-requisites for the collection of valid interview data (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.61)

Sapsford & Jupp (2006) also opine that “the effect of context on responses is sometimes a critical one”, they go on to argue that the context affects response rates. This, to some extent, implies that both the interviewer and the interviewing situation have an impact on the reconstruction of the experiences by the respondents (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.62)

It is important to note that interviewers themselves become part of the “interviewing picture” by asking questions and responding to the respondent and sometimes even sharing their experiences with interviewees; working with the interview data, selecting from it, interpreting and describing and analysing it regardless of their discipline and dedication in keeping the interview data as the product of the respondent (Ferrarotti: 1981; Kvale: 1996 & Mishler: 1986 in Seidman: 1998) (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.62)

In semi-structured interviews “the researcher has a list of questions or fairly specific topics to be covered, often referred to as an interview guide, but the interviewee has a great deal of leeway in how to reply” (Bryman: 2004). Their strength therefore lies in that they are flexible. Robson (2002) opines “that face-to-face interviews offer possibility of modifying responses and investigating underlying responses (Alshenqeeti, 2014; p.62)

Interviewing is one of the most common data collection methods that are employed in qualitative research (64)

Babbie, E & Mouton, J. 2011. The Practice of Social Research, Oxford University Press: Cape Town.

Berg, B. L. 1989. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Nadham Hiegths: MS: Allyn & Bacon.

Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press: New York.

Seidman, I. 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research, A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences, accessed from online from web studies, University of Stellenbosch

Mishler. T. 1986. Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Sapsford, R. & Jupp, V. Data Collection and Analysis, Sage: London.

Extras:

https://helencwilson.blogspot.com/2024/04/interviews.html

https://helencwilson.blogspot.com/2025/07/interviews-and-pck.html