Explain the characteristics of an effective questionnaire and interview schedule highlighting the

key practices in the effective administrative of the two.

An effective questionnaire and interview should include various characteristics such as the length
of questionnaire should be proper one, the language used should be easy and simple, the term used
are explained properly, the questions should be arranged in a proper way, the questions should be
in logical manner. Gubrium and Holstein (2002) says that the other hand a good interview are that
the interviewer should have knowledge about the job, training and experience, listening
attentively, emotional maturity, control of anger and aggression, empathetic attitude, ability to
recognize uniqueness and a stable personality.

Well-designed questionnaire should meet the research objectives. This may seem obvious, but
many research surveys omit important aspects due to inadequate preparatory work, and do not
adequately probe particular issues due to poor understanding. To a certain degree some of this is
inevitable. Every survey is bound to leave some questions unanswered and provide a need for
further research but the objective of good questionnaire design is to 'minimize' these problems.

It should obtain the most complete and accurate information possible. The questionnaire designer
needs to ensure that respondents fully understand the questions and are not likely to refuse to
answer, lie to the interviewer or try to conceal their attitudes. A good questionnaire is organized
and worded to encourage respondents to provide accurate, unbiased and complete information.

A well-designed questionnaire should make it easy for respondents to give the necessary
information and for the interviewer to record the answer, and it should be arranged so that sound
analysis and interpretation are possible.

In the research methods literature, questionnaires and interviews are seen as having differing and
possibly complementary strengths and weaknesses. While questionnaires are usually viewed as a
more objective research tool that can produce generalizable results because of large sample sizes,
results can be threatened by many factors including: faulty questionnaire design; sampling and
non-response errors; biased questionnaire design and wording; respondent unreliability, ignorance,
misunderstanding, reticence, or bias; errors in coding, processing, and statistical analysis; and
faulty interpretation of results Bryman (2008) argues that questionnaire research can be seen as
over-reliant on instruments and, thus, disconnected from everyday life, with measurement
processes creating a spurious or artificial sense of accuracy .

Neither are interviews neutral tools; here data are based on personal interactions which lead to
negotiated and contextually based result. While interviews provide contexts where participants can
ask for clarification, elaborate on ideas, and explain perspectives in their own words, the
interviewer can use questioning to lead or manipulate interviewee responses. Due to the
interpersonal nature of the interview context, participants may be more likely to respond in ways
they deem socially desirable. Hence, interview data are always contrived and, at best, partial and
incomplete understandings of a participant’s point of view. According to Kvale ( 1996) the most
qualitative studies have relatively small sample sizes, the results can be difficult to replicate or
generalize .

Questionnaires are usually paper based or delivered online and consist of a set of questions which
all participants are asked to complete. Once the questionnaire has been created, it can be delivered
to a large number of participants with little effort. However, a large number of participants also
means a large amount of data needing to be coded and analyzed. Interviews, on the other hand, are
usually conducted on a one-to-one basis. They require a large amount of the investigator’s time
during the interviews and also for transcribing and coding the data. Focus groups usually consist
of one investigator and a number of participants in any one session. Although the views of any one
participant cannot be probed to same degree as in an interview, the discussions that are facilitated
within the groups often result in useful data in a shorter space of time than that required by one-to-
one interviews. All too often, however, researchers eager to identify usability problems quickly
throw together a questionnaire, interview or focus group that, when analyzed, produces very little
of interest. What is often lacking is an understanding of how the research method design fits with
the research questions and how to appropriately utilize these different approaches for specific HCI
needs. The methods described in this chapter can be useful when used alone but are most useful
when used together with other methods. Black (1999) provides a comprehensive analysis of the
different quantitative and qualitative methods and how they can be mixed and matched for overall
better quality research.

Furthermore, depending on what we are investigating, sometimes it is useful to start with a

questionnaire and then, for example, follow up some specific points with an experiment, or a
series of interviews, in order to fully explore some aspect of the phenomenon under study.
According to Redmond (2000) it is important to follow a specific points in order to fully explore
some aspect of the phenomenon under the study.

It is commonly accepted that a questionnaire should not be over long. People’s short attention
spans mean that long questionnaires are completed less accurately as people rush to finish them.
This is also true for obvious question repetition with respondents biased towards simply repeating
what they said before whether it is accurate or not. One major problem with very long
questionnaires is the likelihood of participants skim reading them, which increases the likelihood
of participants misinterpreting complex questions. This is also a problem with back-ground
information or instructions given at the beginning of the questionnaire. Many, although not all, of
these problems can be counteracted with careful design of the questionnaire. It is important to
understand that there is a not a simple golden number of questions that can be given as a limit for
questionnaires. The amount of motivation felt by participants to complete the questionnaire can
affect how much they are prepared to concentrate on completing it. For example, participants who
feel the outcomes of the research will directly benefit them may feel more motivated to complete a
questionnaire. Participants who feel the re-search is irrelevant to them may feel less motivated to
complete it. Since a spread of different types of users is often required, it is important to
understand these variations when designing and piloting the questionnaire.

The format for an in-depth interview or focus group can take on many forms for example
scenario-led, reflective accounts, task-led. Yet there are some basic guide-lines that can be
followed for all of these approaches. Initially, it is important to put participants at their ease with
general introductions and permission or interviewing and recording the interview/focus group, as
for any study involving people. According to Extra (2004) details on confidentiality should also be
given about the anonymity of the information and sensitivity concerning its later usage. At this
point it is useful to start the talking with a brief background to the study. This helps contextualize
the focus of the questions and their responses. However, one must be very careful not to give away
too much detail that would bias participants’responses.

In conclusion, questionnaire and interviews are common tools used individual , groups,
government, companies etc. to get feedback, research and collect data. There are several
characteristics of a good questionnaire and interviews for example the emphasis on right word or
phrase, define and quality terms, avoid double negatives words and also multiple questions in
question should be avoided.
REFERENCES

Black, T. R. (1999) Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. London: SAGE
Publishers.

Bryman, A. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gubrium, J. and Holstein, (eds.) (2002) Handbook of Interview Research: Context And Method.
Thousand Oaks: sage.

Redmond, M. (2000) Communication: Theories and Applications. Boston/New York: Houghton

Miffins,chs 8 and 9.

Extra, G. Yagmur (2004) Urban Multilinguiasm in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kvale, D. (1996) Interviews. London: SAGE Publishers.

Midlands State University
Faculty of Social Sciences
RESEARCH METHODS

Name Reg number MODE

Mtsau Runako R188567C CON
Ellen K Ketulo R1810582M CON
Alice A Hlati R185801R CON
Munashe C Mhaka R189720M CON
Lessing T Ndongwe R186368J CON
Kgotso Masiyane R1812712H CON
Thabisile TshitshiliZa R187251Y CON
Tariro Gatsi R188427C CON
Princess Moyo R189277X CON
Michelle ChieZa R186346G CON
Amiel Madakuchekwa R189810A CON
Petronella ChidZere R189217V CON
Anniea BuZuZi R1811203P CON
Bruce Mafunga R181209B CON
Tendai Gatsi R188428V CON
Mishel Shadaya R183634G CON
Anesu Chidarara R1810534P CON

MODULE CODE: LGS205

LEVEL: 2:2

QUESTION: EXPLAIN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE

QUESTIONAIRE AND INTERVIEW SCHEDULE HIGHLIGHTING THE KEY
PRACTISES IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OF THE TWO.