Interview as a qualitative research method
Introduction to interview and why use interviewInterview is far more complicated than asking questions and getting answers. It seems that everyone, not just social researchers, relies on the interview as a source of information, with the assumption that interview results in true and accurate pictures of respondents’ selves and lives. Nobody can escape being interviewed. Some argue that it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel for each interview situation, because interviewing has become a routine technical practice and a pervasive, taken-for-granted activity in our culture. But interviewers cannot ignore contextual, societal, and interpersonal elements. (Denzin, 2000: p645-647) Broadly speaking, any person-to-person interaction between two or more individuals with a specific purpose in mind is called an interview. On the one hand, it can be very flexible: interviewers have the freedom to formulate questions as they think about the issue being investigated. On the other hand, it can be inflexible: sometimes interviewers have to keep strictly to the questions decided beforehand. (Kumar, 2005: p123)
Interviews yield rich insights into people’s biographies, experiences, opinions, values, aspirations, attitudes and feelings. There are, generally, four types of interviews used in social research: the structured interview, the semi-structured interview, the unstructured interview and the group interview. In moving from the structured interview to the unstructured interview, researchers shift from a situation in which they attempt to control the interview through predetermining questions and thus teach the respondent to reply in accordance with the interview schedule, to one in which the respondent is encouraged to answer a question in their own terms. But the researcher does not confine himself to one of the types of interviews. A mixture of two or more types is often more preferable. (May, 2001: p120-121)
In deciding whether to use interview as the research method or not, the following principles shall be taken into consideration: data based on emotions, experiences and feelings, data based on sensitive or rather personal issues, data based on privileged information, and interview’s feasibility. The nature of emotions, experiences and feeling is such that they need to be explored rather than simply reported in a word or two. And the face-to-face approach will produce better data if the project covers sensitive or rather personal issues. With regard to privileged information, it is often the case that people could offer an insight into the issue when they are in a special position to know this issue. Feasibility refers to the assurance of direct access to the prospective interviewees and of the costs involved (including time cost, financial constraints, etc). (Denscombe, 2003: p165)This will be discussed later. Relating these principles to the case study (refer to appendix), the research question is about experiences and feelings, and it is to some extent rather personal in that it asks the interviewee to give a personal account of “Chineseness”. And only those who have seen the film <Farewell my concubine> could tell what has been depicted. Thus interview is, initially, a better method to probe this question.
Interview as a qualitative method
Qualitative interview generally refers to in-depth, loosely or semi-structured interviews which are often used to encourage an interviewee to talk about a particular issue or range of topics. This distinguishes interview from the classical tradition of social survey work, like a questionnaire-based survey in which interviews are standardized to claim direct comparability between interviews with different people and to interview enough people so that the samples and results could be statistically representative of a particular population. The emphasis here is upon data collection and the social world is assumed to have an existence that is independent of the language used to describe it. However, it is also possible that interview data presents one of many possible representations of the world. If it is so, the researcher is reasonably a co-producer of the data, which are produced as a result of an interaction between researcher and interviewees. Here the focus shifts to data generation. (Seale, 2004: p181) However, in doing a qualitative interview, interviewer does not fully depend on the information given by respondents. Interview, to some extent, has been shaped in accordance research aims and objectives. Information needs to be collected, and during interview, interviewer will have to frame, if not intentionally, the whole process to ensure that it is not just a story-telling meeting.
The identification of the qualitative interview as a particular type only became necessary in post-war social research. Interviewer would approach respondents on the basis of their being likely to know a lot about a particular area of life. The respondents, therefore, were viewed as key informants or gatekeepers rather than members of a sample representing some population. It was often the case that the interviewee would have been a person of higher social status than the investigator, so presentation of a loosely structured research agenda allowed the respondent a degree of freedom to raise topics of personal interest, appropriate for the requirements of conversational deference. Developments in the survey field from the 1940s onwards meant that the approach to interviewing which until then had been predominant became separately identified as the qualitative interview, involving a different kind of knowledge and conception of the research subject from the norm of scientific survey research. Large scale surveys required the employment of interviewers who have not received professional training in interviewing. These people would not know much about the aims of the interview, so they cannot fully and appropriately question respondents in a loosely structured interview guide. Thus the roots of the quantitative-qualitative divide developed. (Seale, 2004: p103-104) but is qualitative interview the only way of doing research project related to emotions or feelings? Silverman suspects that the choice of open-ended interview as the gold standard of qualitative research is pretty widely spread. Unfortunately, some qualitative interview studies may lack the analytic imagination to provide anything more than anecdotal knowledge. (Silverman, 2005: p239-240) The problem of anecdotalism could be solved by adopting a methodological triangulation, which ideally involves a between-method approach. Methodological triangulation can take several forms but, classically, might be illustrated by a combination of ethnographic observation with interviews. Additionally, it is frequently cited as a rationale for mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in a study. (Seale, 1999: p54) But triangulation is not the golden rule. It is criticized as an approach that is based on the naïve realist assumption that a single, fixed and coherent reality can be converged on through the use of more than one method. Furthermore, if a research project employing different methods generates consistent findings, it does not follow that a further method would not reveal different, contradictory finds. (Seale, 2004: p297-298)
Silverman has argued that nowadays we are living in an interview society. He means that the interviews have become increasingly common and are central to the ways in which we make sense of our lives. From the 1960s, individualism became wide-spread that encouraged young people in particular to seek more authentic, self-fulfilling lives with the wide-spread sense of rebellion against established authority and life plans based on obligation, duty and tradition. This provided qualitative interviews with a broad stage, on which social researchers participate in the more general romantic celebrations of individualism and attempts to erase inequality and difference. In the reflection of a version of qualitative interview, Taylor and Bogdan argued that the interviewer was not just a robotlike data collector but the research tool. The qualitative interviewer is both egalitarian and understanding, concerned to elicit the unique perspective that each person is imagined to possess. (Seale, 2004: p107) Also in this period, with the development of modern technology, the portable cassette tape recorder enabled closed transcripts to be made and examined in detail. Interviews could take place in a variety of settings, including phone conversation, news interviews and the like. And interview here was treated as a site for the observation of behaviour. Thus the interview occasion was a topic in its own right, rather than a resource for discovering and authenticating things occurring outside the interview. (Seale, 2004: p108)
Interviewers now are increasingly seen as active participants in interactions with respondents, and interviews are seen as negotiated accomplishments of both interviewers and respondents that are shaped by the contexts and situations in which they take place. In other words, researchers are not visible, neutral entities; rather, they are part of the interactions they seek to study and influence those interactions. Interview, finally, is being brought in line with ethnography. However, this “ethnographical interview” assumes that the nearer we come to the respondent, the closer we are to apprehending the real self. This neglects the fact that the self is a process, ever negotiated and accomplished in the interaction. (Denzin, 2000: p663-664) This opens the way to a combination of ways in choosing research method, as will be discussed later.
Questions and problems: critical reflection of semi-structured interview design
Semi-structured interview often starts with a basic checklist of areas to be covered in the interview in the form of questions. The interviewer guides the interview, but permits the various aspects of the subject to arise naturally and in any order. (Bertrand & Hughes, 2005: p79) Hence an interview guide is preferable. It is characteristic of semi-structured interview that more or less open questions are brought to the interview situation in the form of an interview guide. Ideally, these questions will be answered freely by interviewee. But problems are there. The first problem is that of mediating between the input of the interview guide and the aims of the research question on the one hand, and the interviewee’s style of presentation on the other. In the actual process of interviewing, interviewer shall try to mention certain topics given in the interview guide, and at the same time being open to the interviewee’s individual way of talking about these topics and other topics relevant for him or her. Furthermore, interviewer shall not stick rigidly to the guide because this will restrict the benefits of openness and contextual information. (Flick, 1998: p94) In the case study (refer to appendix), questions are designed in a much-too-specific way---the follow-up questions are pre-determined, which allow the interviewee little room to talk about the topic that he or she is really familiar with and interested in. The aim of this research is to find out what type of Chineseness has been established in Chinese films in western countries. However, the questions simply require skin-deep discussion, which, consequently, would fail to generate valuable data.
Now it comes to the discussion of feasibility of the semi-structured interview. When designing the interview guide, the researcher fails to take site accessibility into consideration. (refer to appendix) The first to be mentioned here are time and financial constrains and sampling problems. Interviewing is a time-consuming process--- plenty of time is needed in every stage, from preparatory, to interview sessions, data analysis and interpretation. (Arksey & Knight, 1999: p60-61) The size and nature of sample depends partly on how it is designed to relate to the wider population and partly on the resources available to researcher. Also important is getting interviewees to talk about the topic and thinking about how to contact potential interviewees. This might requires going through intermediaries or gatekeepers. Another issue is data collection. During interview, interviewer shall concentrate on what interviewee is saying and how to respond to make a successful interactive interview. This means audio recording is desirable, although it raises other ethical concern. (Seale, 2004: p187-191)In the case study, the financially ideal interviewees shall be students currently studying at the University of Westminster, a site where the researcher is studying. Interviewing westerners who have seen the target film is almost impossible in that it requires a very large sample to make it representative. “Westerners” is a very broad concept and it is not easy to choose from so many westerners. In addition, not all of them, even if they like the film, would like to talk about Chineseness. And the questions in the interview guide are not interesting enough to get people to talk. Using audio recording equipments again raise ethical concerns like privacy, personal embarrassment, and authenticity of data: what if the interviewee, when knowing that the talk will be recorded, feels nervous, and, intentionally tells lies?
As discussed above, ethical issues are almost everywhere in the interviewing process. Social researchers should be ethical, because researchers have no privileged position in society that justifies them pursuing their interests at the expense of those they are studying no matter how valuable they hope that findings might be. In a practical sense, a lawful world requires lawful behaviour. Researchers cannot be outside of the laws, like data protection laws that are common in almost every country of the world. The physical, psychological, and personal harm shall be avoided. Interviewees should give informed consent, which means that on voluntary basis, interviewees must have sufficient information about the research to decide whether or not they want to participate. And researchers should avoid deception or misrepresentation in dealing with informants or research subjects. (Denscombe, 2003: p134-138) In the case study, there is no clear account of the time needed for this interview. Without asking permission, researcher assumes that the interviewee will talk about his topic. This research question is about film studies. In the foreseeable scope, it will not cause any physical, psychological or personal harm to the interviewee. But there is a tendency towards misrepresentation, for the researcher believes that Chineseness has been biased to some extent without doing any research.
Conclusion: Qualitative or quantitative methods, where appropriate
In choosing qualitative or quantitative research methods, researchers should think beyond the divide between the two. Qualitative interview could generate in-depth data and allow research topics to be approached in a variety of ways. The case study is about media effects. The media are deemed most powerful by those working and living in situations of relative privilege; in the poorest centre the media are seen as only one factor, which is less significant than the part played by poverty, by parental absence, and by violence. (Seiter, 1999: p50-60) So it is never wise to assume that qualitative methods are superior to quantitative ones. A suitable methodology is the one suits its project best. In this sense, combined methods are not necessarily better than a single method for all projects. A wise way is to combine qualitative and qualitative methods where appropriate. In this case study, the stage of data generation will best achieved through qualitative interview; while at the stage of data analysis (not mentioned in the appendix) where most probably large amount of data will be analyzed, it is better to use content analysis.
References:
Arksey, Hilary & Knight, Peter (1999) Interviewing for Social Scientists, London: Sage
Bertrand, Ina & Hughes, Peter (2005) Media Research Methods: Audiences, Institutions, Texts, New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Denscombe, Martyn (2003) The Good Research Guide: for Small-scale Social Research Projects (2nd Edition), Maidenhead & Philadelphia: Open University Press
Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonnas (eds) (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Edition), London: Sage
Flick, Uwe (1998) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, London: Sage
Kumar, Ranjit (2005) Research Methodology: A Setp-by-step Guide for Beginners, London: Sage
May, Tim (2001) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process (3rd Edition), Maidenhead: Open University Press
Seale, Clive (ed.) (2004) Researching Society and Culture, (2nd Edition) London: Sage
Seale, Clive (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research, London: Sage
Seiter, Ellen (1999) Television and New Media Audiences, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Silverman, David (2005) Doing Qualitative Research, (2nd Edition) London: Sage
Appendix
Research question:
What is the western perception of China? (What is the western concept of Chineseness in Chinese film <Farewell my concubine>?)
Preface: Here western refers to countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania (mainly Australia and New Zealand). China is not as it has been observed by western world. The word “Chineseness” means very different to different people. Through Chinese films, people have vague ideas about what China is like, though this perception is to some extent biased. <Farewell my concubine> is the representative among Chinese films because it tells a story lasting for almost a century and covering almost all big events happened to contemporary China.
The interviewees are those “westerners” who have seen the film <Farewell my concubine>.
1 What sort of meaning does the word “Chineseness” have for you?
Probe: answer for examples
2 What is the China image that you have formulated through Chinese films?
Encourage the interviewee to use the concept of Chineseness
3 Have you ever been to China? Have you heard your friends or families talking about China?
Get from the answers some examples and continue asking questions like “what have they talked about China” or “could you describe the difference between what you see in China and what you have seen China in the film”
4 Can you call to mind a recent released film that has involved you thinking about Chineseness?
Probe: was there a changing image of China or has the Chineseness remained unchanged for centuries?
5 Suppose you were involved in making a film about China. You have to choose among many events happened there. What criteria would you use in judging which of them is more appropriate to describe China?
6 Have there been any great changes in China in the last ten years? A few examples? 关于研究方法，我觉得国内目前没有特别成熟的理论；因为做社会学研究，一定要照顾到政策，要注意口径的问题。这方面的研究还是很少的。 学到了－－晤谈，作为一种定性的研究方法。 不错的介绍，谢谢。:) 一直都在学习，终于找到、看了艾尔芭比的书没有找到解决的方案
页:
[1]