Interview Data Analysis in Research: Coding, Verification, Reporting, and Ethical Considerations Explained

How the Interview Data Analysis in Research Coding, Verification, Reporting, and Ethical Considerations Explained. The analysis of interview data in research involves a systematic coding process, which guarantees verification (reliability), clear presentation of results, and strict compliance with ethical principles.

Coding, Verification, Reporting, and Ethical Considerations Explained: Interview Data Analysis in Research

Interview Data Analysis in Research — A Complete Guide

Understanding the Process of Analyzing Interview Data

Once data from the interview has been collected, the next stage involves analyzing them, often by some form of coding or scoring. In qualitative data the data analysis here is almost inevitably interpretive; hence the data analysis is less a completely accurate representation (as in the numerical, positivist tradition) but more of a reflexive, reactive interaction between the researcher and the decontextualized data that are already interpretations of a social encounter.

The great tension in data analysis is between maintaining a sense of the holism of the interview and the tendency for analysis to atomize and fragment the data—to separate them into constituent elements, thereby losing the synergy of the whole, and in interviews often the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There are several stages in analysis, for example:

Key Stages of Interview Data Analysis

Generating natural units of meaning.
Classifying, categorizing and ordering these units of meaning
Structuring narratives to describe the interview contents.
Interpreting the interview data.

Miles and Huberman’s 13 Tactics for Generating Meaning

These are comparatively generalized stages. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest thirteen tactics for generating meaning from transcribed and interview data:

Counting frequencies of occurrence (of ideas, themes, pieces of data, words)
Noting patterns and themes (gestalts), which may stem from repeated themes and causes or explanations or constructs
Seeing plausibility—trying to make good sense of data, using informed intuition to reach a conclusion
Clustering—setting items into categories, types, behaviors and classifications
Making metaphors—using figurative and connotative language rather than literal and denotative language, bringing data to life, thereby reducing data, making patterns, decentering the data, and connecting data with theory
Splitting variables to elaborate, differentiate and ‘unpack’ ideas, i.e. To move away from the drive towards integration and the blur ring of data
Subsuming particulars into the general (Akin to Glaser’s (1978) notion of ‘constant comparison)—a move towards clarifying key concepts
Factoring—bringing many variables under a smaller number of (frequently) unobserved hypothetical variables
Identifying and noting relations between variables
Finding intervening variables—looking for other variables that appear to be ‘getting in the way’ of accounting for what one would expect to be strong relationships between variables
Building a logical chain of evidence—noting causality and making inferences
Making conceptual/theoretical coherence— moving from metaphors to constructs to theories to explain the phenomena.

This progression, though perhaps positive in its tone, is a useful way of moving from the specific to the general in data analysis.

Coding Interview Data

What Is Coding and Why It Matters

Miles and Huberman (1994) attach much importance to coding of interview responses, partially as a way of reducing what is typically data overload from qualitative data. Coding has been defined by Kerlinger (1970) as the translation of question responses and respondent information to specific categories for the purpose of analysis. As we have seen, many questions are preceded, that is, each response can be immediately and directly converted into a score in an objective way. Rating scales and checklists are examples of preceded questions.

How to Apply Codes (Line-by-Line)

Coding is the ascription of a category label to a piece of data, with the category label either decided in advance or in response to the data that have been collected. In coding a piece of transcription, the researcher systematically goes through the data, typically line by line, and writes a descriptive code by the side of each piece of datum, for example: Text The students will undertake problem-solving in science I prefer to teach mixed ability classes Code PROB MIXABIL

One can see here that the codes are frequently abbreviations, enabling the researcher to understand immediately the issue that they are describing because they resemble that issue (rather than, for example, ascribing a number as a code for each piece of datum, where the number provides no clue as to what the datum or category concerns). Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that the coding label should bear sufficient resemblance to the original data so that the researcher can know, by looking at the code, what the original piece of datum concerned.

Tools for Coding (Software Options)

There are several computer packages that can help the coder here (e.g. Ethnograph, NUD.IST), though they require the original transcript to be entered onto the computer. One such, Code-A-Text, is particularly useful for analyzing dialogues both quantitatively and qualitatively (the system also accepts sound and video input).

From First-Cycle Codes to Themes, Clusters, and Factors

Having performed the first round of coding the researcher is able to detect patterns and themes and begin to generalize (e.g. by counting the frequencies of codes). The code archer can also group codes into more general clusters, each with a code, i.e. begin the move towards factoring the data.

Miles and Huberman suggest that it is possible to keep as many as ninety codes in the working memory at any one time, though they indicate that data might be recoded on a second or third reading, as codes that were used early on might have to be refined in light of codes that are used later, either to make the codes more discriminating or to conflate codes that are un necessarily specific.

There is also the danger that early codes might influence too strongly the later codes. Codes, they argue, should be kept as discrete as possible, and they should enable the re searcher to catch the complexity and comprehensiveness of the data. They recommend earlier rather than later coding, as late coding, they suggest, enfeebles the analysis.

Coding Open-Ended Questions: Pre-Coding vs post-coding

Perhaps the biggest problem concerns the coding and scoring of open-ended questions. Two solutions are possible here. Even though a response is open-ended, the interviewer may precode her interview schedule so that while an interviewee is responding freely, the interviewer is assigning the content of her responses, or parts of it, to predetermined coding categories. Classifications of this kind may be developed during pilot studies.

Example:

What is it that you like least about your job?
Mostly the way the place is run—and the long hours; and the prospects aren’t too good.

Coding:

colleagues X

organization X

work X

conditions X

other future X

prospects X

Alternatively, data may be post coded. Having recorded the interviewee’s response, either by summarizing it during or after the interview itself, or verbatim by tape recorder, the researcher may subject it to content analysis and submit it to one of the available scoring procedures—scaling, scoring, rank scoring, response counting, etc.

Content Analysis of Open-Ended Data (Brenner et al., 1985)

Thirteen Practical Steps

Content analysis involves reading and judgement; Brenner et al. (1985) set out several steps in undertaking a content analysis of open-ended data:

Step 1 Briefing (understanding the problem and its context in detail).

Step 2 Sampling

Step 3 Associating (with other work that has been done).

Step 4 Hypothesis developments.

Step 5 Hypothesis testing.

Step 6 Immersion (in the data collected, to pick up all the clues).

Step 7 Categorizing (in which the categories and their labels must:

(a) reflect the purpose of the research

(b) be exhaustive

Step 8 Incubation (e.g. reflecting on data and developing interpretations and meanings).

Step 9 Synthesis (involving a review of the rationale for coding and an identification of the emerging patterns and themes).

Step 10 Culling (condensing, excising and even reinterpreting the data so that they can be writ ten up intelligibly).

Step 11 Interpretation (making meaning of the data).

Step 12 Writing, including (pp. 140–3): giving clear guidance on the incidence of occurrence; proving an indication of direction and intentionality of feelings; being aware of what is not said as well as what it said—silences; indicating salience (to the readers and respondents).

Step 13 Rethinking.

What Researchers Should Keep in View During Content Analysis

This process, the authors suggest (ibid.: 144), requires researchers to address several factors:

Understand the research brief thoroughly.
Evaluate the relevance of the sample for the research project
Associate their own experiences with the problem, looking for clues from the past.
Develop testable hypotheses as the basis for the content analysis
Test the hypotheses throughout the interviewing and analysis process.
Stay immersed in the data throughout the study.
Categorize the data in the Concept Book, creating labels and codes.
Incubate the data before writing up.
Synthesize the data in the Concept Book, looking for key concepts.
Cull the data, being selective is important because it is impossible to report everything that happened.
Interpret the data, identifying its meaning and implication.
Write up the report.
Rethink and rewrite: have the research objectives been met?

Hycner (1985) sets out procedures that can be followed when phenomenological analyzing interview data. In summary, the guidelines are as follows:

Transcription Having the interview tape transcribed, not only the literal statements but also non-verbal and paralinguistic communication.
Bracketing and phenomenological reduction for Hycner this means, ‘suspending (bracketing) as much as possible the researcher’s meaning and interpretations and entering into the world of the unique individual who was interviewed’ (Hycner, 1985). The researcher thus sets out to understand what the interviewee is saying rather than what she expects that person to say.
Listening to the interview for a sense of the whole this involves listening to the entire tape several times and reading the transcription a number of times in order to provide a con text for the emergence of specific units of meaning and themes later on.
Delineating units of general meaning This entails a thorough scrutiny of both verbal and non-verbal gestures to elicit the participant’s meaning. Hycner says, ‘It is a crystallization and condensation of what the participant has said, still using as much as possible the literal words of the participant’ (Hycner, 1985).
Delineating units of meaning relevant to the research question Once the units of general meaning have been noted, they are then reduced to units of meaning relevant to the research question.
Training independent judges to verify the units of relevant meaning Findings can be verified by using other researchers to carry out the above procedures.
Eliminating redundancies at this stage, the researcher checks the lists of relevant meaning and eliminates those clearly redundant to others previously listed.
Clustering units of relevant meaning The re searcher now tries to determine if any of the units of relevant meaning naturally cluster together; whether there seems to be some common theme or essence that unites several discrete units of relevant meaning.
Determining themes from clusters of meaning the researcher examines all the clusters of meaning to determine if there is one (or more) central theme(s) which expresses the essence of these clusters.
Writing a summary of each individual interview It is useful at this point, the author suggests, to go back to the interview transcription and write up a summary of the interview incorporating the themes that have been elicited from the data.
Return to the participant with the summary and themes, conducting a second interview this is a check to see whether the essence of the first interview has been accurately and fully captured.
Modifying themes and summary with the new data from the second interview, the re searcher looks at all the data as a whole and modifies or adds themes as necessary.
Identifying general and unique themes for all the interviews the researcher now looks for the themes common to most or all of the interviews as well as the individual variations. The first step is to note if there are themes common to all or most of the interviews. The second step is to note when there are themes that are unique to a single interview or a minority of the interviews.
Contextualization of themes At this point it is helpful to place these themes back within the overall contexts or horizons from which these themes emerged.
Composite summary the author considers useful to write up a composite summary of all the interviews which would accurately capture the essence of the phenomenon being investigated.

Phenomenological Analysis of Interviews (Hycner, 1985)

Step-by-Step Procedures

The author concludes, ‘Such a composite summary describes the “world” in general, as experienced by the participants. At the end of such a summary the researcher might want to note significant individual differences’ (Hycner, 1985)

Verifying Interview Data (Kvale, 1996)

Seven Stages of Validation

In previous posts they has discussed at length the issues of reliability, validity and generalizability of the data from interviews, and so these issues will not be repeated here. Kvale (1996:237) makes the point that validation must take place at all seven stages of the interview-based investigation:

Stage 1 Thematizing. The theoretical underpinnings of the research must be sound and the link between theory and research questions must be logical.

Stage 2 Designing. The research design must be adequate and sound in terms of methodology, operationalization, sampling, and ethical defensibility.

Stage 3 Interviewing. The data must be trust worthy and the interview must be conducted to the highest standards, with validity and reliability checks being made as it unfolds.

Stage 4 Transcribing. The translation from oral and social media to a written medium should be faithful to key features of the original media.

Stage 5 Analyzing. The methods of analysis and interpretations of the data are faithful to the data.

Stage 6 Validating. Decisions are reached on the most appropriate forms of validity for the study, and who the validators might be.

Stage 7 Reporting. The report fairly reflects the study and can be seen to be fair by the readers.

One main issue here is that there is no single canon of validity; rather, the notion of fitness for purpose within an ethically defensible frame work should be adopted, giving rise to different kinds of validity for different kinds of interview based research (e.g. structured to unstructured, qualitative to quantitative, nomothetic to idiographic, generalizable to unique, descriptive to explanatory, positivist to ethnographic, pre ordinate to responsive).

Reporting Qualitative Interview Findings

What to Include in the Report

The nature of the reporting will be decided to some extent by the nature of the interviewing. For example a standardized, structured interview may yield numerical data that may be reported succinctly in tables and graphs, whilst a qualitative, word-based, open-ended interview will yield word-based accounts that take up considerably more space. Kvale (1996:263–6) suggests several elements of a report:

(a) an introduction that includes the main themes and contents

(b) an outline of the methodology and methods (from designing to interviewing, transcription and analysis)

(d) a discussion. If the report is largely numerical then figures and tables might be appropriate; if the interview is more faithfully represented in words rather than numbers, then this presents the researcher with the issue of how to present quotations.

Using Direct Quotations Well

Here Kvale (ibid.: 266) suggests that direct quotations should:

(a) illuminate and relate to the general text whilst maintaining a balance with the main text

(b) be contextualized and be accompanied by a commentary and interpretation

(d) should include an indication of how they have been edited

(e) be incorporated into a natural written style of the report.

Group Interviewing

Advantages and Practical Value

Group interviewing is a useful way of conducting interviews. Watts and Ebbutt (1987) set out the advantages and disadvantages of group interviewing as a means of collecting data in educational research. The advantages include the potential for discussions to develop, thus yielding a wide range of responses. They explain, ‘such interviews are useful…where a group of people have been working together for some time or common purpose, or where it is seen as important that everyone concerned is aware of what others in the group are saying’ (Watts and Ebbutt, 1987).

For example, Lewis (1992) found that 10-year-olds’ understanding of severe learning difficulties was enhanced in group interview situations, the children challenging and extending each other’s ideas and introducing new ideas into the discussion. The group interview, the paper argues, can generate a wider range of responses than in individual interviews. Bogdan and Biklen (1992:100) add that group interviews might be useful for gaining an insight into what might be pursued in subsequent individual interviews.

There are practical and organizational advantages, too. Group interviews are often quicker than individual interviews and hence are timesaving and involve minimal disruption. The group interview can also bring together people with varied opinions, or as representatives of different collectivities. Group interviews of children might also be less intimidating for them than individual interviews.

Common Difficulties a nd How to Address Them

Simons (1982) and Lewis (1992) chart some difficulties in interviewing children, for example how to:

Overcome children being easily distracted
Avoid the researcher being seen as an authority figure
Keep the interview relevant
Interview inarticulate, hesitant and nervous children
Get the children’s teacher away from the children
Respond to the child who says something then immediately wishes she hadn’t said it
Elicit genuine responses from children rather than simply responses to the interview situation
Get beyond the institutional, headteachers, or ‘expected’ response
Keep children to the point
Avoid children being too extreme or destructive of each other’s views
Pitch language at the appropriate level
Avoid the interview being an arduous bore
Overcome children’s poor memories
Avoid children being too focused on features or situations
Overcome the problem that some children will say anything rather than feel they do not have ‘the answer’
Overcome the problem that some children dominate the conversation
Avoid the problem of children feeling very exposed in front of their friends.
Avoid children feeling uncomfortable or threatened (addressed, perhaps, by placing children with their friends)
Avoid children telling lies.

Clearly these problems are not exclusive to children; they apply equally well to some adult group interviews. Group interviews require skillful chairing and attention to the physical layout of the room so that everyone can see everyone else. Group size is also an issue; too few and it can put pressure on individuals, too large and the group fragments and loses focus.

Lewis (1992) summarizes research to indicate that a group of around six or seven is an optimum size, though it can be smaller for younger children. As regards the disadvantages of group inter views, Watts and Ebbutt note that they are of little use in allowing personal matters to emerge, or where the researcher has to aim a series of follow-up questions at one specific member of the group. As they explain, ‘the dynamic of a group denies access to this sort of data’ (Watts and Ebbutt, 1987).

Further, Lewis (1992) comments on the problem of coding up the responses of group interviews. For further guidance on this topic and the procedures involved, we refer the reader to Simons (1982), Watts and Ebbutt (1987), Hedges (1985), Breakwell (1990), Spencer and Flin (1990) and Lewis (1992).

Focus Groups

What Focus Groups Are and Why Use Them

As an adjunct to group interviews, the use of focus groups is growing in educational research, albeit more slowly than, for instance, in business and political circles. Focus groups are a form of group interview, though not in the sense of a backwards and forwards between interviewer and group. Rather, the reliance is on the interaction within the group who discuss a topic supplied by the researcher (Morgan, 1988:9).

Hence the participants interact with each other rather than with the interviewer, such that the views of the participants can emerge—the participants’ rather than the researcher’s agenda can predominate. It is from the interaction of the group that the data emerge. Focus groups are contrived set tings, bringing together a specifically chosen sector of the population to discuss a particular given theme or topic, where the interaction with the group leads to data and outcomes.

Their contrived nature is both their strength and their weakness: they are unnatural settings yet they are very focused on a particular issue and, therefore, will yield insights that might not otherwise have been available in a straightforward interview; they are economical on time, producing a large amount of data in a short period of time, but they tend to produce less data than inter views with the same number of individuals on a one-to-one basis (ibid.: 19). Focus groups (Morgan, 1988; Krueger, 1988) are useful for

Developing themes, topics, and schedules for subsequent interviews and/or questionnaires
Generating hypotheses that derive from the insights and data from the group
Generating and evaluating data from different sub-groups of a population
Gathering feedback from previous studies.

Focus groups might be useful to triangulate with more traditional forms of interviewing, questionnaire, observation etc.

Design Decisions for Effective Focus Groups

There are several issues to be addressed in running focus groups, for example (Morgan, 1988:41–8):

Deciding the number of focus groups for a single topic (one group is insufficient, as the researcher will be unable to know whether the outcome is unique to the behavior of the group)
Deciding the size of the group (too small and intra-group dynamics exert a disproportion ate effect, too large and the group become unwieldy and hard to manage; it fragments). Morgan (ibid.: 43) suggests between four and twelve people per group
How to allow for people not ‘turning up’ on the day. Morgan (ibid.: 44) suggests the need to over-recruit by as much as 20 per cent
Taking extreme care with the sampling, so that every participant is the bearer of the required characteristic or that the group has homogeneity of background in the required area, otherwise the discussion will lose focus or become unrepresentative. Sampling is a major key to the success of focus groups
Ensuring that participants have something to say and feel comfortable enough to say it
Chairing the meeting so that a balance is struck between being too directive and veering off the point, i.e. Keeping the meeting open-ended but to the point.

Unlike group interviewing with children, discussed above, focus groups operate more successfully if they are composed of relative strangers rather than friends, unless friendship, of course, is an important criterion for the focus (e.g. that the group will discuss something that is usually only discussed amongst friends). Although its potential is considerable, the focus group, as a particular kind of group inter viewing, still has to find its way into educational circles to the extent that it has in other areas of life.

The non-directive interview and the focused interview Originating from psychiatric and therapeutic fields, the non-directive interview is characterized by a situation in which the respondent is responsible for initiating and directing the course of the encounter and for the attitudes she ex presses in it (in contrast to the structured or research interview we have already considered, where the dominating role assumed by the interviewer results in, to use Kitwood’s phrase, ‘an asymmetry of commitment’ (Kitwood, 1977)).

It is a particularly valuable technique in that it gets at the deeper attitudes and perceptions of the person being interviewed in such a way as to leave them free from interviewer bias. We shall examine briefly the characteristics of the therapeutic interview and then consider its usefulness as a research tool in the social and educational sciences. The non-directive interview as it is currently understood grew out of the pioneering work of Freud and subsequent modifications to his approach by later analysts.

His basic discovery was that if one can arrange a special set of conditions and has a patient talk about his/her difficulties in a certain way, behaviour changes of many kinds can be accomplished. The technique developed was used to elicit highly personal data from patients in such a way as to increase their self-awareness and improve their skills in self-analysis (Madge, 1965). By these means they became better able to help themselves. The present-day therapeutic interview has its most persuasive advocate in Carl Rogers.

Basing his analysis on his own clinical studies, he has identified a sequence of characteristic stages in the therapeutic process, beginning with the client’s decision to seek help. He/she is met by a counsellor who is friendly and receptive, but not didactic. The next stage is signaled when the client begins to give vent to hostile, critical and destructive feelings, which the counsellor accepts, recognizes and clarifies.

Subsequently, and invariably, these antagonistic impulses are used up and give way to the first expressions of positive feeling. The counsellor likewise accepts these until suddenly and spontaneously ‘insight and self-understanding come bubbling through’ (Rogers, 1942). With this insight comes the realization of possible courses of action and also the power to make decisions. It is in translating these into practical terms that clients free themselves from dependence on the counsellor.

Rogers (1945) subsequently identified a number of qualities in the interviewer which he deemed essential: that she bases her work on attitudes of acceptance and permissiveness; that she respects the client’s responsibility for his own situation; that she permits the client to explain his problem in his own way; and that she does nothing that would in any way arouse the client’s defenses.

There are a number of features of the therapeutic interview which are peculiar to it and may well be inappropriate in other settings: for ex ample, as we have seen, the interview is initiated by the respondent; his/her motivation is to obtain relief from a particular symptom; the interviewer is primarily a source of help, not a procurer of information; the actual interview is part of the therapeutic experience; the purpose of the interview is to change the behaviour and inner life of the person and its success is defined in these terms; and there is no restriction on the topics discussed.

A researcher has a different order of priori ties however, e.g. focus, economics of time; what appear as advantages in a therapeutic context may be decided limitations when the technique is used for research purposes, even though she may be sympathetic to the spirit of the non-directive interview (Madge, 1965).

Focused Interview (Merton & Kendall, 1946)

One attempt to meet this need is reported by Merton and Kendall (1946) in whom the focused interview was developed. While seeking to follow closely the principle of non-direction, the method did introduce rather more interviewer control in the kinds of questions used and sought also to limit the discussion to certain parts of the respondent’s experience. The focused interview differs from other types of research interview in certain respects (Merton and Kendall, 1946):

The persons interviewed are known to have been involved in a particular situation: they may, for example, have watched a TV programme; or seen a film; or read a book or article; or have been a participant in a social situation.
By means of the techniques of content analysis, elements in the situation which the re searcher deems significant have previously been analysed by her. She has thus arrived at a set of hypotheses relating to the meaning and effects of the specified elements.
Using her analysis as a basis, the investigator constructs an interview guide. This identifies the major areas of inquiry and the hypotheses which determine the relevant data to be obtained in the interview.
The actual interview is focused on the subjective experiences of the people who have been exposed to the situation. Their responses enable the researcher both to test the validity of her hypotheses, and to ascertain unanticipated responses to the situation, thus giving rise to further hypotheses

From this it can be seen that the distinctive feature of the focused interview is the prior analysis by the researcher of the situation in which subjects have been involved. The advantages of this procedure have been cogently explained by Merton and Kendall: Fore-knowledge of the situation obviously reduces the task confronting the investigator, since the interview need not be devoted to discovering the objective nature of the situation.

Equipped in advance with a content analysis, the interviewer can readily distinguish the objective facts of the case from the subjective definitions of the situation. He [sic] thus becomes alert to the entire field of ‘selective response’. When the interviewer, through his familiarity with the objective situation, is able to recognize symbolic or functional silences, ‘distortions’, avoidances, or blockings, he is the more prepared to explore their implications. (Merton and Kendall, 1946)

In the quest for what Merton and Kendall term ‘significant data’, the interviewer must develop the ability to evaluate continuously the interview while it is in progress. To this end, they established a set of criteria by which productive and unproductive interview material can be distinguished. Briefly, these are:

Non-direction Interviewer guidance should be minimal.
Specificity Respondents’ definitions of the situation should find full and specific expression.
Range The interview should maximize the range of evocative stimuli and responses reported by the subject.
Depth and personal context the interview should bring out the affective and value-laden implications of the subjects’ responses, to determine whether the experience had central or peripheral significance. It should elicit the relevant personal context, the idiosyncratic associations, beliefs and ideas.

By way of example of productive interview material, Ashton (1994) used focused interviews to ascertain the strengths of beliefs and the personal reactions of principals of further education colleges to various changes being pressed upon them by central government and local agencies.

Telephone Interviewing

Advantages

Telephone interviewing is an important method of data collection and is common practice in survey research. Dicker and Gilbert (1988), Nias (1991), Oppenheim (1992) and Borg and Gall (1996) suggest several attractions to telephone interviewing:

It is sometimes cheaper than face-to-face interviewing.
It enables researchers to select respondents from a much more dispersed population than if they have to travel to meet the interviewees.
It is useful for gaining rapid responses to a structured questionnaire.
Monitoring and quality control are under taken more easily since interviews are under taken and administered centrally; indeed there are greater guarantees that the researcher actually carries out the interview as required.
Call-back costs are so slight as to enable frequent call-backs possible, enhancing reliability and contact.
Many groups, particularly of busy people, can be reached at times more convenient to them than if a visit were to be made.
They are safer to undertake than, for example, having to visit dangerous neighbor hoods.
They can be used to collect sensitive data, as a possible feeling of threat of face-to-face questions about awkward, embarrassing or difficult matters is absent.
Response rate is higher than, for example, questionnaires.

Clearly this issue is not as cut-and-dried as the claims made about it, as there are several potential problems with telephone interviewing, for example:

It is very easy for respondents simply to hang up on the caller.
There is a chance of skewed sampling, as not all of the population have a telephone (often those lower income households—perhaps the very people that the researcher wishes to target) or can hear (e.g. the old and second language speakers in addition to those with hearing difficulties).
There is a lower response rate at weekends.
Some people have a deep dislike of telephones that sometimes extends to a phobia and this inhibits their responses or willingness to participate.
Respondents may not disclose information because of uncertainty about actual (even though promised) confidentiality.
Many respondents (up to 25 per cent, Oppenheim, 1992:97) will be ‘ex-directory’ and so their numbers will not be available in telephone directories.
Respondents may withhold important information or tell lies, as the non-verbal behaviour that frequently accompanies this is not witnessed by the interviewer.
It is often more difficult for complete strangers to communicate by telephone than face to-face, particularly as non-verbal cues are absent.
Respondents are naturally suspicious (e.g. of the caller trying to sell a product).
One telephone might be shared by several people.
Responses are difficult to write down or record during the interview.

That said, Sykes and Hoinville (1985) and also Borg and Gall (1996) suggest that telephone interviewing reaches nearly the same proportion of many target populations as ‘standard’ inter views, that it obtains nearly the same rate of response, and produces comparable information to ‘standard’ interviews, sometimes at a fraction of the cost.

Harvey (1988), Oppenheim (1992) and Miller (1995) consider that:

(a) telephone inter views need careful arrangements for timing and duration (typically that they are shorter and quicker than face-to-face interviews)—a preliminary call may be necessary to fix a time when a longer call is to be made.

(b) the interviewer will need to have ready careful prompts and probes, including more than usual closed questions and less complex questions, in case the respondent ‘dries up’ on the telephone.

(d) sampling requires careful consideration, using, for example, random numbers or some form of stratified sample. In general, however, many of the issues from ‘standard’ forms of interviewing apply equally well to telephone interviewing.

Limitations and Quality Considerations

Interviews have an ethical dimension; they concern interpersonal interaction and produce information about the human condition. One can identify three main areas of ethical issues here—informed consent, confidentiality, and the consequences of the interviews; each is problematic (Kvale, 1996:111–20).

For instance, who should give the informed consent (e.g. participants, their superiors), and for whom and what? How much information should be given, and to whom? What is legitimate private and public knowledge? How might the research help or harm the interviewees? Does the interviewer have a duty to point out the possible harmful consequences of the research data, or will this illegitimately steer the interview?

Ethical Issues in Interviewing

Key Ethical Domains and Guiding Questions

It is difficult to lay down hard and fast ethical rules, as, by definition, ethical matters are contestable. Nevertheless, it is possible to raise some ethical questions to which answers need to be given before the interviews commence:

Has the informed consent of the interviewees been gained?
Has this been obtained in writing or orally?
How much information should be given in advance of the study?
How can adequate information be provided if the study is exploratory?
Have the possible consequences of the research been made clear to the participants?
Has care been taken to prevent any harmful effects of the research to the participants (and to others)?
To what extent do any potential benefits outweigh the potential harm done by the research, and how justifiable is this for con ducting the research?
How will the research benefit the participants?
Who will benefit from the research?
To what extent is there reciprocity between what participants give to and receive from the research?
Have confidentiality, anonymity, non-identifiability and non-traceability been guaranteed? Should participants’ identities be dis guised?
How does the Data Protection Act (1984) operate in interview situations?
Who will have access to the data?
What has been done to ensure that the interview is conducted in an appropriate, non-stressful, non-threatening, manner?
How will the data and transcriptions be verified, and by whom?
Who will see the results of the research? Will some parts be withheld? Who own the data? At what stage does ownership of the data pass from interviewees to interviewers? Are there rights of veto for what appears? To whom should sensitive data be made available (e.g. should interview data on child abuse or drug taking be made available with or without consent to parents and the police)?
How far should the researcher’s own agenda and views predominate? What if the re searcher makes a different interpretation from the interviewee? Should the interviewees be told, even if they have not asked for these interpretations?