Interview Methods in Research Methodology
The interview method of collecting data involves presentation of oral-verbal stimuli and reply in
terms of oral-verbal responses. This method can be used through personal interviews and, if
possible, through telephone interviews.
Personal interviews: Personal interview method requires a person known as the interviewer
asking questions generally in a face-to-face contact to the other person or persons. (At times the
interviewee may also ask certain questions and the interviewer responds to these, but usually the
interviewer initiates the interview and collects the information.) This sort of interview may be in
the form of direct personal investigation or it may be indirect oral investigation. In the case of
direct personal investigation the interviewer has to collect the information personally from the
sources concerned. He has to be on the spot and has to meet people from whom data have to be
collected. This method is particularly suitable for intensive investigations. But in certain cases it
may not be possible or worthwhile to contact directly the persons concerned or on account of the
extensive scope of enquiry, the direct personal investigation technique may not be used. In such
cases an indirect oral examination can be conducted under which the interviewer has to cross-
examine other persons who are supposed to have knowledge about the problem under
investigation and the information, obtained is recorded. Most of the commissions and
committees appointed by government to carry on investigations make use of this method.
The method of collecting information through personal interviews is usually carried out in a
structured way. As such we call the interviews as structured interviews. Such interviews involve
the use of a set of predetermined questions and of highly standardised techniques of recording.
Thus, the interviewer in a structured interview follows a rigid procedure laid down, asking
questions in a form and order prescribed. As against it, the unstructured interviews are
characterised by a flexibility of approach to questioning. Unstructured interviews do not follow a
system of pre-determined questions and standardised techniques of recording information. In a
non-structured interview, the interviewer is allowed much greater freedom to ask, in case of
need, supplementary questions or at times he may omit certain questions if the situation so
requires. He may even change the sequence of questions. He has relatively greater freedom while
recording the responses to include some aspects and exclude others. But this sort of flexibility
results in lack of comparability of one interview with another and the analysis of unstructured
responses becomes much more difficult and time-consuming than that of the structured responses
obtained in case of structured interviews. Unstructured interviews also demand deep knowledge
and greater skill on the part of the interviewer. Unstructured interview, however, happens to be
the central technique of collecting information in case of exploratory or formulative research
studies. But in case of descriptive studies, we quite often use the technique of structured
interview because of its being more economical, providing a safe basis for generalization and
requiring relatively lesser skill on the part of the interviewer.
We may as well talk about focussed interview, clinical interview and the non-directive interview.
Focussed interview is meant to focus attention on the given experience of the respondent and its
effects. Under it the interviewer has the freedom to decide the manner and sequence in which the
questions would be asked and has also the freedom to explore reasons and motives. The
main task of the interviewer in case of a focussed interview is to confine the respondent to a
discussion of issues with which he seeks conversance. Such interviews are used generally in the
development of hypotheses and constitute a major type of unstructured interviews. The clinical
interview is concerned with broad underlying feelings or motivations or with the course of
individual’s life experience. The method of eliciting information under it is generally left to the
interviewer’s discretion. In case of non-directive interview, the interviewer’s function is simply
to encourage the respondent to talk about the given topic with a bare minimum of direct
questioning. The interviewer often acts as a catalyst to a comprehensive expression of the
respondents’ feelings and beliefs and of the frame of reference within which such feelings and
beliefs take on personal significance.
Despite the variations in interview-techniques, the major advantages and weaknesses of personal
interviews can be enumerated in a general way. The chief merits of the interview method are as
follows:
1. More information and that too in greater depth can be obtained.
2. Interviewer by his own skill can overcome the resistance, if any, of the respondents; the
interview method can be made to yield an almost perfect sample of the general
population.
3. There is greater flexibility under this method as the opportunity to restructure questions is
always there, specially in case of unstructured interviews.
4. Observation method can as well be applied to recording verbal answers to various
questions.
5. Personal information can as well be obtained easily under this method.
6. Samples can be controlled more effectively as there arises no difficulty of the missing
returns; non-response generally remains very low.
7. The interviewer can usually control which person(s) will answer the questions. This is not
possible in mailed questionnaire approach. If so desired, group discussions may also be
held.
8. The interviewer may catch the informant off-guard and thus may secure the most
spontaneous reactions than would be the case if mailed questionnaire is used.
9. The language of the interview can be adopted to the ability or educational level of the
person interviewed and as such misinterpretations concerning questions can be avoided.
10. The interviewer can collect supplementary information about the respondent’s personal
characteristics and environment which is often of great value in interpreting results.
