Approaches to Qualitative and Quantitative Interviews - Essay Example

?APPROACHES TO QUALITATITIVE AND QUANTITATIVE INTERVIEWS By: Introduction Social research is defined as an elaborate process that follows a clearly defined methodology to generate scientific knowledge (Gatrell, 2009, p. 110). The process should begin with a question mostly expressed as an interrogative sentence and seeks to explore the relationship between variables (Gatrell, 2009, p. 113). Social research uses two approaches to collect data that is used to understand social constructs and processes. The two approaches are qualitative and quantitative interviewing. The widely defined distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches is that quantitative approach is usually objective and uses statistics and figures while qualitative approach are subjective and relies on language and descriptions (Long, White, Friedman & Brazeal, 2000, p. 189). Although this differentiation is correct; they assert that it does not capture the different setting that the two operate. They observe that quantitative and qualitative research methods are usually based on varying epistemological and ontological assumptions shaping the research, the function of the researcher and the relationship between the researcher and the respondent. Yauch and Steudel (2003, p. 467) explains that the difference between qualitative and quantitative evident in two levels. The two are distinguished by first; the type of data collected where in quantitative data statistics are collected by use of surveys and experimentation among other techniques. On the other hand, qualitative data are words collected by use of interviews, participant observation, and focus groups discussion (Yauch and Steudel, 2003, p. 467). The second level of difference between the two methods postulates that the two are distinctive research paradigms. They argue that the focus of quantitative and qualitative research is usually different adding that the appropriateness in use of either relies on the fundamental assumption of the researcher and the characteristics of the trend being studied. In social research, interviewing is the main technique that is used to gain insights into the aspect being studied. This paper will evaluate the qualitative approaches to the interview and assess how these differ from quantitative approaches. Qualitative Research Interview There are various approaches that to qualitative research interview. Alvesson (2003, p. 13) outlined that neo-positivist, romantic and localist as some approaches used in qualitative interviews. A neo-positivist approach to qualitative research views an interview as a mission to search and discover and the basic objective of conducting the interview is to extracting accurate information from the interviewees (Welch and Piekkari, 2006, p. 418). To achieve their objectives, interviewers should carry out the interview in an impartial manner to reduce biasness and distortion of responses. In the neo-positivist approach, traditional measures of reliability, objectivity, repeatability and validity are the key indicators of the quality of the interview (Payne, & Wansink, 2011, p. 380). The approach views language instrumentally and mechanically as a medium to pass information between the interviewee and the interviewer (Welch and Piekkari, 2006, p. 418). The main challenge that faces the interviewer is usually on how to phrase the questions appropriately and precisely to eliminate potential misunderstanding between them and thereby ensure accurate retrieval of information from the respondent. The second approach to qualitative interviewing is the romantic approach. This approach contradicts the neo-positivist’s proposition that researchers must maintain a neutral and objective position when carrying out an interview (Welch and Piekkari, 2006, p. 418). This model recognizes the basic nature of interviews as a way of social interaction and therefore the proponents of this approach argue that interviewers should strive to engage their respondents at a personal level. They hold that engaging interviewees at a personal level helps to helps to create an atmosphere of rapport and trust which allows the respondent to give genuine and open responses (Welch and Piekkari, 2006, p. 418). The emphasis is laid in this approach of evaluating personal beliefs; sense making and the inner intentions of the interviewees are derived from interpretive epistemology. In the romantic approach, the main challenge to the interviewer is usually based on creating situated friendship with the interviewee because the quality of the findings is dependent on the form of interaction (Hays & Wood, 2011, p. 283). Consequently, in this approach, language is considered as a means for ‘’communion’’ between the interviewee and interviewer (Welch and Piekkari, 2006, p. 420). Choice of the right language is critical to make the respondent comfort and obtain authentic responses. Informed by this approach to interview, interviewers should strive to use common language used in communication and steer away from technical jargon (Welch and Piekkari, 2006, p 418). They argue that by use of the respondent’s native language is the easiest way to gain acceptance in addition to demonstrating the willingness of the interviewer to get ‘’into the world of the respondents’’. A third approach to interviewing is the localist. This approach like a romantic approach looks at an interview to be a form social and interaction (Welch and Piekkari, 2006, p. 424). However, this approach goes further to view the discussions in interviews as being determined by the social context within which they take place. Welch and Piekkari (2006, p. 421) observe that data collected from interviews is inter-relational and contextually based which is generated by the interviewer and the respondent within a particular place and time. Although the meaning in the interview is made from a localized environment, respondents and researchers also use knowledge of the social views to make sense from each other. In the localist approach to interview, language is viewed as a form of construction and not just a mirror on reality (Alvesson, 2003, p. 23). The approach to qualitative interviewing is the positivist approach. Positivist approach strives to unravel qualitative data having propositions that can be compared with other cases. Qualitative interview adopts a positivist approach if it attempts to identify practices that lead to consistent set of results rather than the other set. In a positivist approach, the interview seeks to identify characteristics that are related to a policy problem or unravel strategic patterns that are consistent across varying locations and among different individuals (Alvesson, 2003, p. 13). Positivist approach seeks to identify social issues with propositions which can be correlated with other cases and achieves this by identifying general patterns. Positivist approach does not allow for the interviewer to comprehend the causal mechanisms. Alvesson (2003, p. 24) observes that although positivist approach gives a chance to a researcher to identify if various phenomena are connected consistently, it fails to get the reason why the relationship exists. To reduce uncertainty in a positivist interview, the researcher can design the research so that it helps compare many observations based on what the hypothesis predicts as important dimensions. In light of the above, positivist approach argue that more details and specification in an interview helps to bring out a greater understanding of the problem under investigation (Singer, Stopka, Siano, & Springer, 2000, p. 1049). The other approach used in qualitative interviews is the interpretivist approach. This approach is used in interview with an aim of understanding the meaning of social concepts such as poverty and race in a given operations or to discover the unconscious and conscious justifications that people have for what they stand for (Skinner, Tagg & Holloway, 2000, p. 163). Interpretivist approach is used to discover details on preferences, actions and motivations that can not be easily made numeric. Alvesson (2003, p. 23) argues that questions used in the interpretivist interview remind the interviewer to not only look for the occurrence or absence of connectedness, but also particular ways in which the relationship is brought out and the contexts within which it occurs. This is achieved by ensuring that the researcher pays keen attention to the interviewee’s reasons for a stated behavior and try to discern how the behavior is linked with the belief. Moreover, in interpretivist approach, the interviewer must always to identify ways for which the behaviors and beliefs are reverberated in other particular practices. Interpretivist is based on the credibility and accuracy of the interview to define the validity but does rely on evaluation of the way variables are repeated (Singer, Stopka, Siano, & Springer, 2000, p. 1049). Interpretivist approach is based on an interest of understanding how their research is similar to those conducted by others. Qualitative Research Interview Quantitative approaches are not well documented as the qualitative approaches (Prowse, 2010, p. 212). However, he notes that positivism is the main approach used in quantitative interviews. Positivism aims at understanding the social world by discovering of universal laws by measuring steady union of events in two or more phenomena (Prowse, 2010, p. 213). Universal laws are viewed as empirical generalizations viewed to be influenced by differences in time and space. Consequently, positivists unravel these generalizations by setting sand testing their hypothesis in a deductive manner (Prowse, 2010, p. 213). Hypotheses which conform to the results are extrapolated since positivists view the world as closed system (Prowse, 2010, p. 213). Positivists marginalize the interview effects, that is, the interviewer’s socio-biographical personality does not affect the generalization of data given the assumed objectivity of the interview. Positivist interviewers also ignores the respondent effects which means that the respondents message is always assumed when it does not conform to the interviewer’s intended message. Thirdly, positivists ignore the field effects such as political, economic, and social trends that may be present in the field of research. The other approach used in the quantitative research is the critical realism (Prowse, 2010, p. 216). This approach postulates that social science must be able to come up with generalized claims although the subjectivities of respondents and meanings deduced within an action is critical to understand the external world (Prowse, 2010, p. 217). This is achieved through an optimist and pragmatic position where the interviewers seek a stratified approach of ontology. In this approach therefore the interview is focused on unraveling the properties that the society and people have. Realism outlines empirical, the actual and real ontological domains. Empirical realm deals with human experiences, while the actual domain deals with those events happening in real world but no individual has experience in. Real includes both the empirical and actual domains (Prowse, 2010, p. 218). In the realism approach, the interview is based on a belief that causal mechanisms can be studied by abstraction where some aspects of the phenomenon are isolated from other forces acting upon it (Prowse, 2010, p. 218). Conclusion Quantitative and qualitative approaches are the two approaches used in social research. The difference between the two is not only based upon the kind of data that is collected but also reflects the different settings and interactions between the researcher and respondent. There are different approaches used in both quantitative and qualitative interviewing in research although the methods used in quantitative interview are not as developed as those of qualitative interviewing. In qualitative interview, a romantic approach may be used which recognizes the basic nature of interviews as a way of social interaction. Consequently, the proponents of this approach argue that interviewers should strive to engage their respondents at a personal level. The other approach is a localist approach which views the discussions in interviews as being determined by the social context within which they take place. A neo-positivist approach views an interview as a mission to search and discover with a basic objective of extracting accurate information from the interviewees. Other approaches under qualitative interviews are interpretivist and positivist approach. A positivist approach is also adopted in quantitative approach where it aims at understanding the social world by discovering of universal laws by measuring steady union of events in two or more phenomena. Realism is the other approach which aims at deducing the meanings of generalized claims from subjects in a particular setting. References Alvesson, M 2003, ‘’Beyond Neopositivists, Romantics, and Localists: A Reflexive Approach to Interviews in Organizational Research’’, Academy of Management Review, 28, 1, pp. 13-33. Gatrell, C 2009, "Safeguarding subjects?", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 110-122. Hays, D and Wood, C 2011, "Infusing Qualitative Traditions in Counseling Research Designs", Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 288-295. Long, R.G., White, M.C., Friedman, W and Brazeal, D 2000, "The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research Debate: A Question of Metaphorical Assumptions?", International Journal of Value - Based Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 189-197. Payne, C and Wansink, B. 2011, "Quantitative Approaches to Consumer Field Research", Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 377-389. Prowse, M 2010, "Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research", Progress in Development Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 211-231. Singer, M., Stopka, T., Siano, C and Springer, K 2000, "The social geography of AIDS and hepatitis risk: Qualitative approaches for assessing local differences in sterile-syringe access among injection drug users", American Journal of Public Health, vol. 90, no. 7, pp. 1049-56. Skinner, D., Tagg, C and Holloway, J 2000, "Managers and research: The pros and cons of qualitative approaches", Management Learning, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 163-179. Welch, C. & Piekkari, R. 2006, "Crossing Language Boundaries: Qualitative Interviewing in International Business", Management International Review, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 417-437. Yauch, C.A. & Steudel, H.J. 2003, "Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods", Organizational Research Methods, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 465-481. Read More