Limitations and quality of data

In spite of the many positive features of semi-structured interviews there are still a couple of limitations to this method. Firstly, as the interview is designed to allow flexibility and new findings its effectiveness will also inevitably depend on the interviewer‟s skills and ability to make up questions during the interview. Besides that, unconscious signals sent by the interviewer as well as leading questions could lead the respondent to direct his or her answers in a specific direction pre-supposed by the researcher‟s expectations.

Thus, the reliability of the results is limited as it is impossible to repeat a semi-structured interview. Whilst the questionnaire does follow a standardised pattern of questions, interviewees are encouraged to talk freely and additional unscripted questions are asked. This more personal nature of the interview and the fact that samples tend to be (very) small, make findings difficult to generalise and impossible to confirm statistically. Additionally, respondents may answer questions “in a different way depending on a number of factors...

that are impossible for the researcher to control” (Livesey, 2002, p. 3).39 However, reliability during a specific interview can be attained by verifying the consistency of the respondent‟s answers as “[r]eliability refers to the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned

to the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different occasions”

39 _{For instance, the respondents’ feelings in the specific moment of the interview or the interviewer-}

(Hammersley, 1992, p. 67). This means that statements that are mentioned repeatedly by a respondent can be compared in order to confirm the consistency of the given answers. Next to that, it is important to keep in mind that the degree of impression management might influence the given responses as well (Silverman, 2010, p. 270ff.). This might for instance be the case concerning the treatment of women or more generally the matchmaking business. As such, the interview with agency owner Richter reveals discrepancies between what he proclaims as being his opinion and the way he actually acts in his business.

Aside from the aforementioned limitations of semi-structured interviews; a commonly posed question in qualitative social research is whether the results are valid. This has been described by Hammersley (1992, p. 57) in these terms: “By validity, I mean truth: interpreted

as the extent to which an account accurately represents the social phenomena to which it refers.” Semi-structured interviews offer “a depth of information through the use of open- ended questions” and do not constrain respondents‟ answers through predetermined

questions (Livesey, 2002, p. 3). Validity is hard to prove using this research technique.40 Furthermore, the researcher-participant relationship may additionally affect the outcomes of the studies. For instance the fact of me being a German woman may have had an impact on the openness and willingness of the men to answer gender-sensitive questions. Indeed, during the interviews there were noticeable hesitations at questions about German women and their characteristics which strongly suggested that such questions were not thoroughly answered because of my gender and nationality.41 Hence, in order to improve the validity of a study, researchers need “to seek to refute their initial assumptions about their data in order to achieve objectivity” (Silverman, 2010, p. 278f.). When some evidence seems to point in an interesting direction, the temptation to draw hasty and easy conclusions must be avoided and this evidence should instead be subjected to every possible test. By applying the comparative method – through an interview with an agency focused on German-German relationships – the provisional hypothesis about the process and motivations of those engaged in international matchmaking was systematically tested.

Another noteworthy aspect (generally encountered) in this context is that qualitative reports typically include excerpts of raw data, such as quotations from interviews, that allow the reader to make a “validity check” between the data and the researchers account. However, the danger of “anecdotalism” (i.e. when only some well-chosen “examples” are presented to the audience as evidence for the inferences) should always be kept in mind as it may lead to

40

The interviewer cannot know if the respondent is telling the truth or is giving a perfect recall of his or her experiences. After some reflection-time people try to make sense of their behaviour by rationalising their actions. Thus, the respondents’ “explanation for their behaviour, with hindsight, may be very different from

what they actually felt at that time” (Livesey, 2002, p. 2).

41 _{Such as the reference made by Wieland “I always had problems with German women and... well that’s not}

undesirable and uncontrolled distortion of the results (Silverman, 2010, p. 222f.).42

A factor that certainly limits the validity of this study and its results is the fact that the interviewed couples were contacted through the agency owners. More precisely, the latter ones have not only an interest in that their business is presented in a positive light with positive examples (of successfully matched couples), but also in contrast to common stereotypes of abuse of their service for migration purposes (which very likely influenced the selection of contacts forwarded to me).

Last but not least, it is important to note that the generalisation of the gathered information through qualitative research is particularly difficult.43 In general, the “depth of (personal)

information created using this method may make it relatively more difficult to generalise findings from a small group of people to a much larger group” (Livesey, 2002, p. 4). More

specifically, the sample on which this study relies focuses on the specific Dominican-German matchmaking on one hand and on one single kind of agency on the other hand. Hence, the acquired information through this study can neither be generalized to matchmaking agencies world-wide nor to any individual opting for this process to find a partner. First of all, agencies in this particular business all work differently, with dissimilar policies and conceptions. Although the two selected agencies participating in this study share a similar concept and procedure they nevertheless still differ from each other concerning their method of advertisement (such as including more or less stereotyping of Dominican women on their web pages). Next to that, the motivation of the participating men and women strongly depends on their respective social, cultural, economic and family backgrounds. Due to the substantial complexity of this topic as well as the high number of related parameters, it is generally virtually impossible to factor in all possible parameters into a study.

This research should thus be considered an exploratory study, with the examples in this survey, serving mainly to build new perspectives on the motivations that are involved in international matchmaking businesses. The aim is place a check on the prejudices that international matchmaking serves as a means for migration (on the women‟s part) and for facilitates old-fashioned gender ideas (from the men‟s side).

42

“There is a tendency towards an anecdotal approach to the use of data in relation to conclusions and

explanations in qualitative research. Brief conversations, snippets from unstructured interviews… are used to provide evidence of a particular contention. There are grounds for disquiet in that the representativeness or generality of these fragments is rarely addressed.” (Bryman, 1988, p. 77).

43

Generalisation in qualitative research means that the result is an “integrated, precise model that

comprehensively describes a specific phenomena [sic], instead of a simple correlational statement about antecedent and consequent conditions” (Mehan, 1979, p. 21).