7.1.2. Interviews

An interview is different from a survey in that it is always conducted in person and usually involves much fewer persons (as few as 5, 20, or 40, usually not much more than that). Interviews may be structured, that is, follow a pre-determined pattern of questions or unstructured, where only a set of topics is pre-decided, and the actual questions emerge as part of a conversation.

Interviews are a qualitative research method used to gather in-depth insights. Unlike surveys, which can involve large numbers of respondents and fixed questions, interviews are more personal. They typically involve fewer participants and allow for flexible conversation. In a structured interview, the interviewer follows a set script, while in an unstructured interview, the questions can evolve naturally based on the conversation.

Imagine you are having a deep conversation with a friend about their experiences with school. If you stick to specific questions like 'What is your favorite subject?' that’s similar to a structured interview. But if you start discussing how a particular teacher affected them and that leads you to ask additional questions based on their responses, that’s more like an unstructured interview.

Interviews have the advantage of being flexible in that promising topics may be pursued in greater detail, questions may be refined or modified along the way, and clarifications may be sought.

One of the key benefits of interviews is their flexibility. If during the interview, the participant mentions something interesting, the interviewer can change direction to explore that topic further. This type of engagement can lead to more profound insights than a fixed survey, where questions cannot be altered.

Think of a detective in a mystery novel. Instead of just checking off questions in a notebook, they listen closely to the person's story, picking up on subtle hints that guide them to ask deeper questions. This way, they uncover hidden details that could be crucial to solving the case.

The disadvantage of the interview method is that it cannot cover a large number of people and is limited to presenting the views of a select group of individuals.

While interviews offer depth, they do not represent a broad audience. Researchers may get rich, detailed information from a small group, but they cannot generalize these findings to a larger population. This means that important perspectives might be overlooked.

Imagine interviewing a few exceptional athletes about their training. While their experiences might be valuable and insightful, they represent only a small fraction of all athletes. If you only rely on these interviews for understanding all athletes, you might miss out on important challenges faced by those who don't have the same resources or training opportunities.

Interviews may be more or less intensive, in the sense that one may interview a person for a long time (2–3 hours) or in repeated visits to get a really detailed version of their story.

Interviews can vary in length and depth. Some might be short, lasting about 30 minutes, while others could take several hours. Longer interviews allow for deeper exploration of a participant's thoughts and feelings. They can even require multiple sessions to fully understand complex narratives.

Consider a writer working on a biography. They might spend several hours interviewing their subject, aiming to gather not just facts but the emotional nuances of their experiences. It’s like going deep into a forest rather than just standing at the edge—much more can be discovered with time and attention.

--