Interviews as primary data source - good idea?
I am doing a social science PhD and interviews are my primary data source... I am feeling a bit concerned that I am not getting enough information or insight from my participants (I am asking older people about their experiences of community life and how this might affect their wellbeing). Has anyone had this concern? My research requires my participants to be reflective but I am not convinced it is working. Are focus group discussions a better alternative?
Please help, I would love to hear other people's experiences.
Sandiane
Hi
I understand this dilemma - I think it's probably especially the case if your not a full participant in their setting (I can't tell whether you are or not, of course, but I've certainly been a stranger in some of my research settings and it takes a while), as for this kind of questioning a huge amount of trust will be needed, I would have thought.
Are your interviews being conducted in an environment that your participants know well or will it be feeling a bit strange for them - is it worth thinking about where you do it and whether they should be structured or more meandering?
I'm not a fan of focus groups but that's probably cos I always seem to have had overbearing types who take over and there's always the jumping on the bandwagon thing that concerns me about peer pressure. But I may be being unfair - look forward to others' thoughts on that aspect.
Additionally, I recently read this article and thought it was very interesting. It's in Applied Linguistics so social science although certainly not your discipline, but it may have some thoughts on the process you hadn't considered.
Talmy, Steven (2010) 'Qualitative Interviews in Applied Linguistics: From Research Instrument to Social Practice', Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30 (pp128-148).
Hope some of that helps. But good luck getting more out of your participants.
Oh good someone understands
Thank you for the reference I will check it out.
I am carrying out the interviews in the people's homes and also in a neutral space in a local family resource centre, depending on access. The setting I think is definitely a factor, and the participants home is probably where they would feel most comfortable to talk but often its not a good idea to do the interviews in people's homes for various reasons.
Trust is an interesting one, I have been emphasizing to my participants that I take ethics and confidentiality very seriously and I point out that on the information sheet I give them they have a contact number for the university if they feel that I did not follow correct procedure.
I have also a few participants requesting that I do not record the interview, which means that I have to take notes and keep the conversation flowing at the same time which is a bit tedious.
Hi Sandian,
looking at your subject doing focus groups may be good alternative. I think in individual interviews it is hard for people to think of "experiences of community life" on the spot and it may well be, as you indicate, that the information that comes forward is limited. A focus group, especially if it would be held at a community centre, could be seen a pleasant social event. Participants may recognise things said by others and this may spark new ideas. I think this interaction can be very fruitful to obtain a wide range of themes. Obviously there are also disadvantages of focus groups, it requires quite bit of skill of the moderator to keep the conversation running, there may be confidentiality issues and some people may not feel free to speak openly. Also they may be hard to organise. However, often they do provide a lot of useful information. Good luck.:-)
Building trust was a massive element in my interviews - I approached participants through a wider support group - which gave me the legitimacy I needed. you could also try something as simple as making them a cup of tea!
Also - do check your questions, a friend of mine doing a PhD showed me their interview questions and they were ALL either leading questions or closed questions. Make sure questions start with e.g. why, what, where, how and you'll be able to elicit more findings.
Another thing to consider is to loosen up the structure. One of the profs here often deals with older generation folks and has found that eliciting stories is a very useful start. Sometimes he doesn't need to get into questions because the stories get into the topics on their own. If he has more questions still, then he tries to probe the stories for their reflections as related to the research.
He said that it puts them at ease and makes it seem more like a friendly conversation over tea/cake instead of somebody coming in and grilling them with questions. Also, allowing them to tell you their story lets them feel they are opening up to you AND that you are willing to be a recipient of their story. Just some food for thought.
Trust takes time and though I'm generalising about the entire elderly population (!!), many older people like talking to a young person so I don't think your age should be a negative issue. Maybe are you asking them too many questions???? Give them time to think and try not to be afraid of silences. Also, return to questions further on in the interview - after 30 mins or so they should be more relaxed so you could say "can I ask you again about 'x'? Have you thought about returning to your interviewees a second time? That way you might get deeper insights from them as they will relax with you over time. You could use a mix of qualitative methods (I am) and triangulate between them - but that does takes time.
