Structured interviews

Structured interviews

1. Structured interviews are similar to questionnaires: both involve asking a set of prepared questions, and both typically use close-ended questions with pre-coded answers. The main difference is that in the interview, the questions are read out and the answers filled in by a trained interviewer, rather than by an interviewee. The basic similarity between structured interviews and questionnaires means that they share many of the same advantages and disadvantages. Where there are differences, these often come from the fact that structured interviews involve interaction between interviewer and interviewee.

2. Interviews are both practical and impractical. Training interviewers is relatively easy and cheap, as all they are required to do is follow a set of instructions. However, this is more expensive than simply posting or emailing a questionnaire. Surveys using structured interviews can cover quite large numbers of people with relatively limited resources due to being quick and fairly cheap to administer. However, they still can’t match the potentially huge numbers reached by postal questionnaires. Structured interviews are suitable for gathering straightforward quantitative information such as a person’s age or job, but fail to provide qualitative data. The results are easily quantified due to the use of close-ended questions with coded answers, making them suitable for hypothesis testing.

3. Structured interviews allow researchers to survey large numbers, and this increases the chances of obtaining a representative sample of the population. While the numbers that can be studied are generally lower than for questionnaires, structured interviews typically have a higher response rate, arguably because people find it harder to turn down a face-to-face request, and some may welcome the interaction. Furthermore, response rates can be increased if the researcher can make several attempts to pursue those who fail to respond. This does then increase the cost of the survey, but also produces a more representative result, therefore allowing generalisations. Having said that, those with thee time or willingness to participate may be untypical, e.g. lonely or have time on their hands, and this will then produce unrepresentative data, undermining the validity of any generalisations made from the findings.

4. Structured interviews are considered to be reliable as its easy for the researcher to standardise and control them, ensuring that each interview is conducted in precisely the same way. If a researcher is successful in conducting each interview in exactly the same way, then any other researcher following the same interview procedures should get very similar results. The procedures can be seen as recipes; should they be followed in the same way, they should result in the same data. If a method is reliable, we can then compare answers to identify similarities and differences

5. Critics of structured interviews argue that they often produce a false picture of the subjects they are attempting to study. Structured interviews typically use close-ended questions, restricting interviewees to choose from a limited number of pre-set answers. If none of these pre-set answers fits what the interviewee reallywants to say, the data obtained will be invalid. Structured interviews also give the interviewer very little freedom to explain questions and clarify misunderstandings. In addition, interviewees could exaggerate or simply lie, which then will produce false data. Finally, the interview is a social interaction, meaning there is a risk that the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee will influence the answers given. Gender and ethnic differences can affect answers, as can the interviewee’s desire to be seen in a favourable light.

6. Structured interviews are inflexible because the questions are created in advance. In deciding the questions before starting the research, the researcher has already decided what is important and what isn’t, and this may not coincide with what the interviewee thinks is important. Subsequently, the findings may lack validity as they don’t reflect the interviewee’s concerns and priorities. Establishing questions beforehand and then sticking to them rigidly will mean that an interviewer cannot pursue any interesting leads that emerge during the interview, thereby losing valuable insights. Finally, structured interviews are merely snapshots taken at one moment in time, thusly failing to capture the dynamic nature of social life.

7. Graham argues that survey methods are patriarchal and give a distorted picture of women’s experience. She argues that the researcher is in control of the interview, deciding the line of questioning to be followed, mirroring women’s subordination in wider society, that survey methods treat women as isolated individuals rather than seeing them in the context of the power relationships that oppress them, and that surveys impose the researcher’s categories on women, making it difficult for them to express their experiences of oppression, thus concealing the unequal power relationships between the sexes. Graham argues that sociologists need to use methods that allow the researcher to understand women’s behaviour, attitudes and meanings. She therefore advocates the use of direct observation. Other feminists favour unstructured interviews, which enable the interviewer to build a more equal, trusting and supportive relationship.