Interviews:
Advantages
Large Sample sizes
Easy to code
Can Clarify Concepts
Concepts are less likely to
be imposed on the world
Practical
Collaboration
Only Method Possible
Disadvantages
Respondents may lie,
forget, or may lack the
information required.
May not act in accordance
with their stated beliefs.
Artificial Situations
Presence of the Researcher
Interviewer Bias
Aware of Social Conventions
Compared to participant observation, interviews can utilize larger samples, so
generalizations are more valid (not the research, the generalisations)
With some coding of responses it is possible to produce statistical data from
interviews and it is easier to replicate the research and check results. Because
there is usually some degree of structure in an interview it is easier to make
direct comparisons. (Reliable)
Interviewers can clarify any misunderstandings (validity)
issues can be explored in greater depth: and the researcher does not limit the
responses to fixed choices. For these reasons interviews can be useful for
generating new hypotheses which the researcher would not have thought of.
There is no other method which allows access to so many different groups of
people and different types of information. They can be used to extract simple
factual information and about their attitudes.
For feminists, it allows close collaboration between interviewer and interviewee
so that they can become partners in the research. Interviews allow the
opportunity for critical reflection by all those involved, so that they can examine
and sometimes change the perspective through which they see the world. This is
important for critical researchers, whose objective is to change the social world.
Such possibilities may not be possible in participant observations, where the flow
of social life limits time for reflection.
Laurie Taylor used interviews to study criminals, Participant observations were
out of the question and questionnaires were unlikely to be completed.
Laurie Taylor interviewed criminals; who later claimed to have made up fanciful
stories to see how gullible he was. (Validity)
When reflecting on past events they may alter their interpretation in the light of
subsequent experiences (Validity). (Matza – criminals – change their minds: he
found delinquents for the most part disapproved of criminal behavior. It was
later argued that the punishment they had received earlier changed their
attitudes towards crime.)
one may question whether they capture the daily life, conditions opinions values
attitudes and knowledge base of those we study as expressed in their natural
habitat.
The answers given may be influenced by the way the interviewees define the
situations. (William labov found that `soung black American children responded
differently when interviewed in different contexts.) (speaking differently)
There is more opportunity for the interviewer to direct the interview towards
giving certain types of response. Consciously or unconsciously, respondents
might give the sort of answers they believe the interviewer wans to hear, rather
than saying what they truly believe. (Validity)( Stuart A. Rice: poor people asked
why they were in their destitute situation. Those interviewed by a Prohibitionist
said it was because of substance abuse and those interviewed by a socialist
blamed the lack of welfare and opportunity. The interviews views influences the
responses. Prohibition vs socialist.)
there may be differences between social groups in terms of their members
willingness to admit to particular activities. (Bruce Dohrenwend – Mental illness
– Puerto Ricans have behavior in their culture which is misdiagnosed by western
standards as signs of mental illness.)