INTERVIEWS

are good at (strengths):

• giving informants the chance to challenge the agenda set by the researcher, raising new issues, asking questions back;

• collecting qualitative data, ie allowing the researcher to probe the meanings interviewees give to their behaviour, ascertaining their motives and intentions;

• giving informants the opportunity to check what is meant by a question;

• allowing for long and complex responses;

• flexibility - making possible changes in the order of questioning, the questions asked and the topics discussed;

• probing - follow-up questioning seeking clarification or further explanation;

• in-depth inquiry.

are not good at (weaknesses):

• standardising procedures - it's all too easy to change the way a question is put from one interview to the next, or for one interviewer to differ from another in the way the same topic is raised, thus making it difficult to know that all the responses have the same stimulus;

• comparability - flexibility brings dangers in that the same topics may not be addressed or may be addressed in a different order thus making comparisons difficult;

• objectivity - the interviewer may lead the respondent, shaping responses through the tone in which questions are asked, non-verbal clues (eg nodding the head) and sighs of affirmation or gasps of incredulity;

• simplicity - the responses may become so complex as to make analysis very difficult if not impossible;

• large numbers - given the time interviews take it is difficult to survey large numbers of respondents;

• anonymity -  hiding identities is not possible, in so far as the informant is revealed to the researcher in face-to-face meetings;

• 'facts' - they don't always tell us about what happens (practice), they are better as a means of exploring reasons and interpretations than as a way of finding out what actually takes place.

Have a look through the items in 'Further Reading' to find other issues.