continuum of interviews
informal interviewing, unstructured interviewing, semistructured interviewing, structured interviewing
informal interviewing = total lack of structure or control
unstructured interviewing = formal + undeceptive: you’re sitting down for an interview + based on clear plan and minimum of control over the people’s responses
semistructured interviewing = interviewing based on use interview guide: written list of questions and topics that need to be covered in a particular order = control of what you want in the interview, but leaves room to follow new leads
structured interviewing = people are asked to respond to as nearly identical a set of stimuli as possible
unstructured interviewing
used by both positivists and interpretivists
useful when you want info on lived experiences + want to build rapport/trust + informants who wouldn’t tolerate a more formal interview
can be used for studying sensitive issues if you’re good at probing
getting started: assure people of anonymity and confidentiality + tell them why them + encourage informants to interrupt you with anything important + ask permission to take notes and record = be open about intensions
let the informant/respondent lead: keep the conversation focused on a topic while giving the respondent room to define the content of the discussion
probing
= to stimulate a respondent to produce more information without injecting yourself so much into the interaction that you only get a reflection of yourself in the data (e.g. ask where? rather than: place A, or place B or maybe place C?)
different types of of probes:
respondents can be verbal, in this case you need to learn to cut them of gracefully to stay on topic
some respondents may be nonverbal: i don’t know
4 types of idk: i don’t know and don’t care +i don’t know and it’s not your business + i don’t know, actually I do but you’re not interested in what I have to say + i don’t know and which you’d change the subject bc i’m uncomfortable
+ i wish i could help you but i really don’t know
learning to interview
practice + have an experienced interviewer monitor/criticize you
learn from yourself: pay attention to your words (only ask questions you can defend when people ask why you ask that question
importance of language: practice/learn to interview in a certain language before actually going out in the field
pacing the study:
two of the biggest issues researchers who do semistructured interviews = boredom and fatigue: asking the same questions over and over
-> boredom makes interviews shorter
-> spread the project out if possible
presentation of self
cordial-but-nonjudgmental
little things mean a lot
recording interviews
don’t just rely on your memory, use a voice recorder
equipment: have more recorders than you think you need, upload data regularly, use separate microphone for better quality, omnidirectional mics are nice (allows interviewee to walk around whilst answering), test before using, start with fresh batteries
transcribers and VR software: doing it yourself costs 6-8 hours pr hour of recording
!recording is not a substitute for taking notes: did they seem nervous? how much probing did you have to do?
- ask before taking notes, some interviewees seem offended by it
focus groups
complement surveys or individual interviews (don’t replace them)
widely used to find out why people feel as they do about something or the steps people go through in making decisions
usually 6-12 members per group + moderator
focus group research is based on a series of focus groups (not based a single) + groups are homogeneous on certain IVs (just like in experimental and sampling design)
are focus groups valid?
focus groups should be used for collection of data about content and process (bc they offer more detail), not for estimating population parameters of personal attributes
- for that you need a method that produces numbers, like surveys
value of focus groups = produce ethnographically rich data (if captured with transcription)
running a focus group
moderator gets people talking about an issue + needs to silence some and get others to talk more
analyzing data from focus groups: formal content analysis or qualitative analysis
- its best to record focus groups (-> try to prevent people from speaking at the same time)
!!not all group interviews are focus group interviews: in fieldwork it can happen that people insert themselves in a conversation
response effects
= measurable differences in the responses of people being interviewed that are affected by:
e.g.
gender-of-interviewer effects = women are better than men as interviewers: fewer don’t know responses + more responses
race of interviewer effect =
1958 Lenski and Leggett: African Americans 4x more likely than whites to agree to anything (even contradictory statements) bc the interviewers were almost all white and of higher-perceived status (this effect was not ended with election Obama)
language and culture of the interviewer = when you have multiple interviewers, keep track of the gender, race and ethnicity of them and test for response effects
- identify sources of bias
social desirability effect = when people tell you what they think will make them look good according to prevailing standards of behavior and thought
- effect is influenced by how you ask the question (e.g. ask what did you do this weekend rather than did you go to church)
third party-present effect: many interviewers are not entirely private: when 3d party is present people are less likely to tell/report some things (e.g. thoughts about suicide) or more likely to report something (e.g. when partner in the room report more marital conflict)
- suspection: people own up to more sensitive things when their partner is in the room and it will be obvious to them that they’re lying
threatening questions: disclosure of information about socially undesirable behavior increases with perception of anonimity (so e.g. more open in self-adminsitered than face-to-face surveys)
!!asking interviewers to record interviews produces higher response: interviewers know their work can be scrutinized -> probe more
expectancy effect
tendency for experimenters to obtain results they expect, not simply because they have correctly anticipated nature’s response, but rather bc they have helped to shape that response through their expectations
(strictly speaking not a response effect)
behavior of the researcher can affect the behavior of informants
confirmation bias
= tendency to see what we expect to see and for any new evidence we uncover to confirm rather than challenge what we already believe
deference/acquiescence effect
= when people tell you what they think you want to hear bc they see you as being of higher status
accuracy
you have to take the word of people
La Pierre Discovers the problem:
1930-32: traveled with Chinese couple through the US, were not denied service in any restaurant + only in one hotel
after experiment ended, La Pierre sent questionnaire to each of the 250 establishments they visited: 92% answered they would not accept members of the Chinese race as guests
- some problems with this research: self-adminstered questionnaire (respondents may not be same persons who gave service) + survey didn’t mention the couple would be accompanied by a white man
why are people inaccurate reporters of their own behavior?
aided recall
landmarks = effective ways to jog informants’ memories about details
aided recall increases nr of events recalled, but increases forward telescoping (people report that something happened e.g. one month ago while it actually happened 2 months ago)
- backward telescoping is rare
event history + life history calanders = produce a lot of landmarks + are effective aids to recall