IB Docs (2) Team
Interviews
HL Paper 3: Interviews
This section looks at three types of interviews - unstructured, semi-structured, and focus groups. For Paper 3, it is important to know the characteristics of these methods. For Papers 1 and 2, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of these methods when evaluating research.
Before completing this component, be sure to read HL: Understanding interviews
Upon completion of this section, you should be able to discuss the following concepts:
- Focus groups
- Interviewer effects
- Interview schedule
- Social desirability effect
- Unstructured vs. semi-structured interviews
Types of interviews
Psychologists may use three types of interviews to carry out research - structured, semi-structured, and focus groups.
The IB will not give you a structured interview on the exam. However, you should be familiar with the term. A structured interview ensures that each interview is presented with exactly the same questions in the same order. Structured interviews may also be done in written form. When they are, we call this a questionnaire. (See the box below on questionnaires).
Unstructured interviews work with topics rather than a set of questions. For example, "Talk to me about your experience here at our school over the past three weeks." This allows the interviewee to decide what they want to talk about. This may lead to unexpected findings.
Semi-structured interviews are somewhere in between. On the one hand, there are often specific questions that the researcher wants answered; these questions to some extent limit what the participant may talk about. However, the interviewer is allowed to go into more depth by asking follow-up questions when the participant says something of interest to the researcher.
Semi-structured
Researchers have an interview guide of standardized questions for all interviewees, which increases the reliability of the findings.
Researchers are not restricted to the questions but can ask follow-up questions for more in-depth data. It enables the researcher to make interventions, asking participants either to clarify or to expand on areas of interest.
The one-to-one situation with a list of questions is somewhat artificial and this could bring issues such as ecological validity into question.
Data analysis is easier because there is a standard set of questions in the interview guide.
Unstructured
High in ecological validity. This is like a normal conversation.
Is not dependent on standardized questions. It avoids the problem of potential leading questions.
Uses an inductive approach that believes that data may emerge from an interview and provide information that was not expected.
Although the themes are set, the questions are not. This means that the way that questions are asked is subject to the skill and biases of the researcher.
Data analysis is very time-consuming as each participant that is interviewed has a different set of questions. This means that the interview process is not highly standardized, making a comparison of the data difficult in some cases.
Focus groups
First, watch the following video.
Key characteristics of a focus group include:
- It is a group interview, using a group of 5 - 8 participants. Sometimes, if there is a concern that the topic may not engage all members of the group, slightly larger sample sizes may be used.
- A researcher is trained to facilitate the group to keep them focused on the topic; however, the interview is an open conversation among the members of the group.
- Because it is like a group conversation, this method has high ecological validity.
- Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. The researchers must inform participants not to repeat what is said in the focus group to others.
It is a quick and convenient way to collect data from several individuals simultaneously.
The researcher plays less of a central role and the conversations happen among the participants, so it can be argued that it has higher ecological validity than the one-to-one interview.
Members of the group may help to prompt relevant ideas and opinions of others that might not come out in a one-on-one interview.
Focus groups are not appropriate for all research questions. If the research deals with sensitive matters and the participants are supposed to talk about their personal experiences, it is not guaranteed that people will disclose information. There is also the ethical concern that other participants in the group may not keep information confidential.
The presence of other participants may result in group dynamics such as conformity or social loafing.
Focus groups can be difficult to facilitate and the data may be difficult to analyse.
What about questionnaires?
Questionnaires may be used as an "alternative method" on the exam. You will not be given a stimulus piece that is a questionnaire; however, questionnaires are often used in correlational studies or case studies.
Before looking at the characteristics of questionnaires, watch the video below.
As you can see from the video, there are some issues when using questionnaires. This is something to think about when evaluating research on Papers 1 and 2.
Things to know about questionnaires and surveys:
- Questionnaires provide us with qualitative data; surveys provide us with quantitative data. However, in many questionnaires, there is a combination of qualitative and quantitative data.
- Questionnaires are more practical than interviews in that you can more easily get data from a larger sample size.
- Questionnaires may be anonymous, eliminating potential demand characteristics.
- Questionnaires also control for interviewer effects. These include that the interviewer interrupts the conversation because of poor training or is not a good facilitator, the interview is attractive/unattractive to the participants, the accent/language used by the research is unclear.
- Questionnaires also control for potential conformity effects or social loafing which is seen in focus groups.
Assessing your understanding
Read the following short abstract* and then answer the questions below.
A group of researchers carried out focus groups in 2005/2006 with 25 urban female methadone-maintained outpatients. This is a treatment used to help alleviate opioid addiction. The researcher asked a clinic in Paris to recommend patients. All patients were contacted by email. Of the 37 that replied, 25 were chosen for the study. Those that had other health concerns - e.g. cancer or schizophrenia, were excluded from the study.
The participants were put into one of three focus groups, depending on what time of day was most convenient for them. The topic of the focus group was their beliefs about the role of spirituality in addiction and its appropriateness in formal treatment.
A thematic analysis of the transcripts indicated that the participants felt that their own spirituality and religious practice had suffered during their addiction. Participants agreed that integration of a voluntary spiritual discussion group into formal treatment would be preferable to currently available alternatives.
Questions
Please note that questions 1a - 1c are the questions that will be asked on all Papers 3. Question 2 is to test your critical thinking - but is also linked to question 3 on Paper 3, which will be discussed later in the module.
1a. Identify the method used and outline two characteristics of the method.
1b. Describe the sampling method used in the study.
1c. Suggest an alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice.
2. Explain one potential bias of this sample.
Exam Tip
Question 1c on Paper 3 asks you to propose an alternative method that could be used to carry out the study. Remember, when proposing another method, you have to have the same aim as the original study. If the stimulus piece (the study) is an interview, then this is an easy question. If it is an unstructured or semi-structured interview, then a focus group would be an appropriate alternative method - and vice versa. You should consider the advantages of using face-to-face vs. group interviews when justifying your response.
By the way, it is also appropriate to propose using questionnaires as an alternative method!
A note about the stimulus piece
The abstract has been altered in order to make it more in line with the Paper 3 expectations. The details in the abstract do not accurately reflect the details of the original study. If you are interested in reading the original study, it may be seen here.
Continue on to case studies
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn