Before starting preparation for a qualitative research interview, reflection on a number of factors had to be considered.
The main consideration that came to light where:* Why and for what purposes the interview was being conducted for* The type of context that the interview would be conducted in* Respondent relationship* Construction of question* The structure of the interview* Interpreting the responsesPurposes of InterviewIn resolving the first point, it was necessary to review interview techniques effectively having regarding it as not just a case of gift but rather a skill to be developed. Further thought about what made the interview different from normal conversation, for example understanding what goes on when one person systematically asks questions of another.Context of InterviewThe second point equipped preparation for answering the question of context of interview by seeing that there are a wide variety of context in which interviews are carried out and the purposes interviews serve between these contexts, for example as in this case a student research, apposed to a job interview. The interview development had to work out not only to impart or to obtain the necessary information required, but to do so in such a way that the participants leave the interview with the feeling they had been treated fairly, listened to and understood (eye contact and body language). The method of considered material usage during the interview had to be acceptable by all participants (notes and tape recorder), to gain consent, forms were issued to each participant to acknowledge approval as well as an interview overview guide.Respondent RelationshipThis aspect gave anticipated concern, (participant selection) and one also considered to be the most interesting, yet demanding aspect of the interview process.
Having considered it to be based on dynamics, which was hoped, would develop as the interview proceeded. It deemed necessary to build on principles in ways which responded to particular situations throughout. For example an agenda to perform in a formal manner and uphold the control at all times throughout the interview as well as the unbiased collection of data.Construction of QuestionThe construction of the interview questions came in the course of good interpersonal relationships of whom would be considered to interview (work colleagues). Using approaches in preparing the questions in the best way to obtain the best answers to be analysed to gain empirical data.
, influenced choice of question formats (multiple choice, open ended, closed) and their implications (ethical considerations), would bare ramifications on the wording, speaking style and in the expression of questions.The Structure of the InterviewThis section allowed an overview of the interview, from the opening stages (arranging a day, time and location), through to the development of the main themes and the closing of the interview. The attempt of the interview would be to develop each question so that it would lead onto the next question (question order), until the topic was completely covered. One of the major issues encountered was in bringing all the questions together to form a cohesive structure, keeping in mind the purpose and to be able to achieve that purpose.
By implementing a pilot interview to facilitate an agreed approach gave beneficial outcomes as developing the structure and identifying the contexts forming from the physical, involving the location and its characteristics (such as the office or home) and involving the personal aspects of needs, coercion or freedom to participate. This however, brought to light constraints of circumstance.Interpreting the ResponsesDue to unavoidable encounters of different constraints throughout the interview, exampling the unpredictability of participants to the conditions and questions, a careful interplay of main domains were covered by a prelist of probing questions to help when participants became stuck for words or even to evade the answering some questions altogether. Analysis as to how the questions were offered, whether by opinion or attitude of the participant was considered to give an interpretation to the respondents reply and/or offer encouragement.THE INTERVIEW ITSELFThe interview was based on abortion, a health-related issue that could be used to explore the relationship between personal lives and social policy.
The interview took place on April 5th 2006, in Oakwood conference room, Central Sussex Collage at 2.30pm. Eight participants took part, five females and three males. All participants were known on a professional work basis. Cultural dissimilarity within the group were narrow, all eight of the participants were born and raised in the UK, however customs varied based on traditions that had influenced upbringing. Two of the female participants were traditionally bought up as Asians and one of the male participants was from an Afro-Caribbean heritage.
The age ranged from 22.4 years to 60.7years.The interview was carried out with the valid consent forms being signed. Steps were taken to ensure all parties involved understood the nature of the investigation and it representing a student taking an OU Social Science course and not from a trained professional in research.The interview protocol consisted of four parts; (A) to assess the participants personal views on abortion; (B) to assess the views of abortion in the social context; (C) aimed at identifying the reasons abortion attributed to the cause of health related issues; (D) evaluate the final explanation offered for the answers given by participants.
ParticipantsEach participant was given a notepad and pencil to make personal notes if so wished and also at the participants' discretion to be handed in at the end of the interview. The interview setting was comfortable and chairs arranged in a semi circle facing the interviewer. Sequently asked questions were answered with little prompting. It appeared that the participants worked well of each other to either agree or disagree.
Questions 2, 12, and 13 created the most debate, where views and opinions varied and began to develop into other subjects such as; strands of policy concern; competing priorities and differing practices for the services of young children. It appeared that the participants were using their working knowledge of the topic. (two were personal assistants to students, five were teachers in different capacities and the final participant was a counsellor for students within a college setting and also worked part time in an abortion medical centre, this was unknown at the time of interview to the interviewer or the other participants).Interviewer relationshipThe evidence suggested that the participants felt able to engage with the interviewer whose appraisal of behavioural characteristics and cognitive psychology identified a richer characterisation of individual behaviour, individual failures or non compliance to certain questions was not registered as the group openly viewed their opinion in much depth as time became an issue.Interview structureThe interview showed that better designing and improvement should be made for greater emphasis to be placed on the demonstration effect, perhaps for the participants to preview the questions before hand with a time limit in addressing each.
The interview was designed for a 30 minute session it continued for 1hour 15 minutes, before the final question was addressed. Another consideration deriving from the interview was cognitive conflict relating to the participants being comfortable if their beliefs were at variance with their behaviour, it was difficult to be able to evaluate this aspect through body language alone. This in turn created an additional role for the interviewer to analyse and perhaps created a too broad analysis to pursue at this stage. As an interviewer I felt rather disassociated from the interview as unsure of how to engage without leading or offering bias opinions, this did not appear to have any bearing on the participants who used the group setting well and perhaps saw my situation as an observations one rather than a participant.
