Quantitative Interview Techniques & Considerations
65 Summary
As has been demonstrated in this chapter, many of the considerations related to quantitative interviews are similar to those of qualitative interviews. While both types of interviews involve some researcher/respondent interaction, the process of conducting the interview, as well as collecting and analyzing the findings differ in a few key ways.
Key Takeaways
- The difference between surveys and standardized interviews is that questions and answer options are read to respondents in a standardized interview, rather than having respondents completing a questionnaire by their own. As with questionnaires, the questions posed in a standardized interview tend to be closed ended.
- An interview schedule contains the list of questions and answer options that the researcher will read to respondents. In a quantitative interview, consistency in the way that the questions and answer options are presented is very important. The aim is to pose every question-and-answer option in the very same way to the every respondent
- Researchers must be aware of the power researchers can hold over respondents particularly in standardized interviews, where the respondent has less control during thee interview process. There are techniques to rebalance the power.
- Rapport is the sense of connection a researcher establishes with a a participant. A good rapport between interviewer and interviewee is crucial to successful interviewing.
- A probe is a request for more information. Active listening means the researcher will probe the respondent for more information from time to time throughout the interview. Both qualitative and quantitative interviewers probe respondents, though the way they probe usually differs. In quantitative interviews, probing should be uniform.
References
Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Busse, B., & Fuchs, M. (2012). The components of landline telephone survey coverage bias. The relative importance of no-phone and mobile-only populations. Quality & Quantity, 46(4), 1209-1225. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9431-3. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-011-9431-3
Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires [PDF]. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79-125. Retrieved from http://www.business.illinois.edu/shavitt/BA_531/Holbrook%20Green%20and%20Krosnick%202003.pdf
Karnieli-Miller, O., & Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279-289. doi:10.1177/1049732308329306
Ryan, P., & Dundon, T. (2008). Case research interviews: Eliciting superior quality data. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application, xx(4). Retrieved from http://www.wacra.org/PublicDomain/IJCRA%20xx_iv_IJCRA%20pg443-450%20Ryan.pdf
Schmitz, A. (2012). Principles of sociological inquiry; Qualitative and quantitative methods. Washington, DC: Saylor Academy.
