12.01.2015 Views

RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN INTERVIEWS 151<br />

minimize this. Silverman (1993) suggests that it<br />

is important for each interviewee to understand<br />

the question in the same way. He suggests that<br />

the reliability of interviews can be enhanced by:<br />

careful piloting of interview schedules; training of<br />

interviewers; inter-rater reliability in the coding<br />

of responses; and the extended use of closed<br />

questions.<br />

On the other hand, Silverman (1993) argues for<br />

the importance of open-ended interviews, as this<br />

enables respondents to demonstrate their unique<br />

way of lo<strong>ok</strong>ing at the world – their definition of<br />

the situation. It recognizes that what is a suitable<br />

sequence of questions for one respondent might be<br />

less suitable for another, and open-ended questions<br />

enable important but unanticipated issues to be<br />

raised.<br />

Oppenheim (1992: 96–7) suggests several<br />

causes of bias in interviewing:<br />

biased sampling (sometimes created by<br />

the researcher not adhering to sampling<br />

instructions)<br />

poor rapport between interviewer and interviewee<br />

changes to question wording (e.g. in attitudinal<br />

and factual questions)<br />

poor prompting and biased probing<br />

poor use and management of support materials<br />

(e.g. show cards)<br />

alterations to the sequence of questions<br />

inconsistent coding of responses<br />

selective or interpreted recording of data/<br />

transcripts<br />

poor handling of difficult interviews.<br />

One can add to this the issue of ‘acquiescence’<br />

(Breakwell 2000: 254), the tendency that<br />

respondents may have to say ‘yes’, regardless of<br />

the question or, indeed, regardless of what they<br />

really feel or think.<br />

There is also the issue of leading questions. A<br />

leading question is one which makes assumptions<br />

about interviewees or ‘puts words into their<br />

mouths’, where the question influences the answer,<br />

perhaps illegitimately. For example (Morrison<br />

1993: 66–7) the question ‘When did you stop<br />

complaining to the headteacher’ assumes that<br />

the interviewee had been a frequent complainer,<br />

and the question ‘How satisfied are you with<br />

the new Mathematics scheme’ assumes a degree<br />

of satisfaction with the scheme. The leading<br />

questions here might be rendered less leading by<br />

rephrasing, for example: ‘How frequently do you<br />

have conversations with the headteacher’ and<br />

‘What is your opinion of the new Mathematics<br />

scheme’ respectively.<br />

In discussing the issue of leading questions, we<br />

are not necessarily suggesting that there is not a<br />

place for them. Indeed Kvale (1996: 158) makes<br />

a powerful case for leading questions, arguing<br />

that they may be necessary in order to obtain<br />

information that the interviewer suspects the<br />

interviewee might be withholding. Here it might<br />

be important to put the ‘burden of denial’ onto<br />

the interviewee (e.g. ‘When did you stop beating<br />

your wife’). Leading questions, frequently used<br />

in police interviews, may be used for reliability<br />

checks with what the interviewee has already said,<br />

or may be deliberately used to elicit particular<br />

non-verbal behaviours that give an indication of<br />

the sensitivity of the interviewee’s remarks.<br />

Hence reducing bias becomes more than<br />

simply: careful formulation of questions so that<br />

the meaning is crystal clear; thorough training<br />

procedures so that an interviewer is more aware<br />

of the possible problems; probability sampling of<br />

respondents; and sometimes matching interviewer<br />

characteristics with those of the sample being<br />

interviewed. Oppenheim (1992: 148) argues, for<br />

example, that interviewers seeking attitudinal<br />

responses have to ensure that people with known<br />

characteristics are included in the sample – the<br />

criterion group. We need to recognize that the<br />

interview is a shared, negotiated and dynamic<br />

social moment.<br />

The notion of power is significant in the<br />

interview situation, for the interview is not simply<br />

a data collection situation but a social and<br />

frequently a political situation. Literally the word<br />

‘inter-view’ is a view between people, mutually, not<br />

the interviewer extracting data, one-way, from the<br />

interviewee. Power can reside with interviewer<br />

and interviewee alike (Thapar-Björkert and Henry<br />

2004), though Scheurich (1995: 246) argues that,<br />

Chapter 6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!