Qualitative interview as a data collecting method

Qualitative researchers are interested to execute interviews and to study their subject in-depth. However, some important issues should be taken into consideration before starting to make interviews. From the structured viewpoint Denzin (1989) and Fontana & Frey (2000) introduce a common classification of interviews: structured interviews, unstructured or semi-structured interviews and group-interviews. A structured interview consists of a clear concept of what to do and ask. Questions are planned beforehand, and population may be large. Usually the researcher is not conducting the interview and there is no room for improvisation in a structured interview. In the unstructured or semi-structured interview improvisation is a central part of the activity. A researcher may have some specific questions but the idea is to be present in the interview. ‘To be present’ means that typically the researcher or one member of the research team is the interviewer. The group interview can be planned structured or unstructured. Here, the idea is that the interview situation includes more than one interviewee, and one or more interviewers. (Denzin 1989: 103–106, Fontana & Frey 2000.)

These three types of qualitative interviews form only a setting or frame for the interview situation. When executing an interview, human issues should also be considered, such as moral and ethical issues or the interest of interviewees to participate in the research. Myers & Newman (2007) have gathered some problems or pitfalls which may appear during qualitative interviews:

– Artificiality of the interview – interrogating a complete stranger; asking to

give or create opinions under time pressure.

– Lack of trust – strangeness may affect an interviewee not to divulge all

information, which causes incompleteness for data gathering.

– Lack of time – not enough time for the interview or time pressure for the

interviewee, which causes either data incompleteness or data unreliability.

– Level of entry – significance of different working levels of the interviewees. – Elite bias – complexity and credibility of the researcher’s and interviewee’s

organizational status.

– Hawthorne effects – sensitivity in the interview situation.

– Constructing knowledge – the interview is not only a data gathering situation

but a knowledge constructing situation for both the researcher and the interviewee.

– Ambiguity of language – a challenge of mutual understanding between the

researcher and the interviewee.

– Interviews can go wrong – misunderstandings and dissonance between the

researcher and the interviewee. (Myers & Newman 2007: 4–5.)

Myers & Newman (2007) have examined the research method sections in twenty- two articles from IS journals: MIS Quarterly (MISQ), Information Systems Research (ISR), Journal of AIS (Association for Information Systems) (JAIS) and Information and Organization (I&O). When analyzing data, they applied a general theory of face-to-face interaction developed by Erving Goffman (1956, 1961). The theory uses metaphors from a theatre, and sees the social interaction as a drama which includes stage, actors, audience, script, entry, exit and performance. As a result of the analysis Myers & Newman (2007) constructed seven guidelines which are adopted in figure 11 (Myers & Newman 2007: 16).

Fig. 11. “Guidelines for the qualitative research interview” (Myers & Newman 2007: 16).

The guidelines are addressed to the qualitative researchers and interviewers and they are described by Myers & Newman (2007) as follows:

1. Situating the researcher as an actor

“Assuming that the researcher is the interviewer, it is important for the researcher to “situate” themselves before the interview takes place. That is, because the interview is a social encounter and the data gathered from interviewees are idiographic, the interviewer should situate themselves as well as the interviewee.” (Myers & Newman 2007:16).

2. Minimize social dissonance

“as the interview is a social encounter, it is important to minimise social dissonance i.e. minimise anything that may lead to the interviewee to feel uncomfortable” (Myers & Newman 2007: 16).

CONTEXT (Physical, Social,

Cultural) 2. Minimise Social Dissonance

5. Use Mirroring in Q&A 6. Flexibility INTER- VIEWER SUBJECT (INTER- VIEWEE) TECHNOLOGY 1. Situating the Researcher 7. Confidentiality of Disclosures 4. Everyone is an Interpreter 3. Represent Various Voices

3. Represent various “voices”

“Finding different subjects is called “triangulation of subjects” (Rubin & Rubin 2005, p. 67), where the idea is to try not to force one voice to emerge.”

(Myers & Newman 2007: 17). 4. Everyone is an interpreter

“subjects are creative interpreters of their world as we are of theirs” (Myers

& Newman 2007: 17).

5. Use Mirroring in questions and answers

“Mirroring is taking words and phrases the subjects use in constructing a subsequent question or comment; mirroring their comments. … The idea is for the interviewee to describe and explain their world in their own words.”

(Myers & Newman 2007: 17). 6. Flexibility

“the interviewer should take account of subjects’ different attitudes (awed, bored, deceiving, fatigued, show off, shy, confessing) and respond accordingly” (Myers & Newman 2007: 17).

7. Confidentiality of disclosures

“It is important for researchers to keep transcripts/records/ and the technology confidential and secure.” (Myers & Newman 2007: 17).

With their research results Myers & Newman (2007) encourage IS researchers to use and execute diverse possibilities and a dramaturgical model of the qualitative interview. The dramaturgical model would have been an interesting interview method for data gathering of the thesis, if it had been available at that time. Anyway, the data gathering was accomplished using an unstructured qualitative interview method of the logical levels by Dilts (1990) which create a sensitive, appreciative and extensive approach to the interview situation as well as to the interviewee and his/her subject. It takes into account ethical and moral attitudes towards the interviewees.

3.3.2 Neuro-linguistic programming and logical levels utilized in the