Miss

Assess the value of interviews in sociological research. (33marks)
One of the practical strengths of structured interviews is its smaller cost when compared to the cost of unstructured interviews. Although the interviewer does need to be trained, their training does not need to be as advanced and so costs less than if they were interviewing a sensitive topic in an unstructured interview. They are also more cost effective when linked with the amount of interviews that are conducted; they are by no means as good as questionnaires, but the use of a structured set of questions means that a researcher can conduct more interviews in the same time that an unstructured would conduct one. Young and Willmott’s study of interviews saw over 900 replies, with only 33 not wishing to participate. This shows how the response rate is often high. Furthermore, with a fixed list of questions the interview can be easily replicated at other times with other interviewees.
Positivist sociologists like this as they see the structured interview as having the advantage of creating data which is high in reliability. To elaborate on this point, a Positivist would say that this is beneficial because generalisations can then be made from collections of the interviews. Pre-coded questions (with fixed response categories) also make it simpler to analyse the data, which then makes creating generalisations easier. Patterns and trends can be identified from this data, which means that cause-and-effect relationships can then also be suggested. For instance, when interviewing ex- offenders about their views of the police, the researcher will have pre-coded the questions; an example of this could be good experiences, bad experiences, middle of the road experiences, with another set of possible answers to fit the ‘other’ category. By having pre-coded questions, it means the data is easily quantifiable, taking less time and costing less as mentioned before. However with closed- ended questions the questions and the response categories are designed and selected by the researcher. This means there is the danger that they will impose their views on the interviewee through interviewer bias. Likewise, interviewees have to try to answer with their views into the researchers’ categories. Often these categories are too narrow, overlap or are open to the interpretation of the interviewee. Similarly the answer interviewees would like to give is sometimes not available. This affects the validity of the research, as interviewees are unable to express their true views.
Validity is of high importance to Interpretivist thinkers. They prefer the use of unstructured interviews because of the greater validity of the data they create. This results from the more open-ended style of interviewing involved, supported by feminist Anne Oakley who claimed open- ended questions were vital for equality and collaboration between interviewer and interviewee if valid results could be collected. Greater trust through a rapport also allows research into sensitive subjects, for instance domestic violence, rape etc. The validity of the data also increases through the flexibility of unstructured interviewing, as leads can be followed up or explored in greater detail and the respondent can take the interview in the direction they want. Interviewees are also given the opportunity to reply in their own words, expressing their feelings and attitudes in ways which are meaningful to them, rather than being forced to use the researcher’s categories. This makes unstructured interviews more ethical, and can be seen again in Anne Oakley’s research. By living with her respondents and even helping in the labours of their children she was able to gain an insight that no researcher could gain through a structured interview; both emotionally and through the longitudinal study she did. Nevertheless, Positivists argue that the creation of rapport increases the effects of Hawthorne as the interviewer becomes involved. To a Positivist it is essential that the interviewer remains as detached and objective as possible so that the validity of the results are not implicated, hence the reason they prefer the use of a list of questions that they can read from. They also often criticise unstructured interviews for being low in reliability. Each informal interview is unique and so cannot be repeated. Furthermore, the data cannot be quantified and therefore it cannot be analysed in any meaningful way or be used to create generalisations.
Ultimately how either structured or unstructured interview is assessed depends on the sociologists’ theoretical position. Positivists see the quantitative data made by structured interviews as much more useful than the qualitative material which is gathered from unstructured interviews. On the other hand, Interpretivists prefer unstructured interviews because the data generated is much more valid than that from formal interviews. These two approaches to interviewing also do not have to be seen as complete opposites. They can be used in a complementary way. Many interviews use both structured and unstructured elements as the research situation requires them. Structured elements may be very useful in identifying patterns of behaviour whilst informal elements may be more appropriate in uncovering explanations of those patterns.