Although an interview could be seen as a simple form of qualitative research, it does in fact have many complex and unique guises. Taking the semi-structured and unstructured forms as a whole, they are slightly different. An unstructured interview could almost be described as a conversation between two people, with some basic questioning and a topic. This could be considered as an interpretivist approach, looking at it from an interviewee’s point of view. Although for an interviewee, this may feel natural and more relaxed, for an interviewer there is the problem of actually gathering data from simply a conversation. Semi-structured interviews do have a more traditional feel to them as they do incorporate a series of questions from which data can be gathered. However, they are still considered more open than an almost questionnaire-like fully structured interview.
Semi-structured interviews are still in the form of a typical interview, however the interviewer does have scope to change the questions or indeed adapt them according to the answers given by the interviewee. In order to ensure the questionnaire or interview is successful, a researcher could perform a pilot study. Bryman continues, “The questions are frequently somewhat more general in their frame of reference from that typically found in a structured interview schedule” (Bryman, 2008, p.196). Rarely are closed questions used in either semi-structured or unstructured interviews, indeed ‘open’ is the preferred choice of questioning. Times when an interview of this structure could be used is in an informal interview situation for research purposes. The interview itself is still open enough to be able to form a conversation, yet not too general as to be unable to collect any data from it. The semi-structured interview is best summed up as ‘flexible’ (Bryman, 2008). The questions first set out in the interview guide may not continue in the way they were intended and many, if not all, will be worded differently especially in a mass interview process which involves surveying people separately. The advantages of such a system include the ability to talk to people about sensitive issues without coming across as cold or unconcerned for their situation, neither do you want to be seen as dominating the interview with your own experiences, this allows the conversation to flow, yet still having a clear structure. Hannah Creane follows on from this, stating that a semi-structured interview, “…would allow me to gain the research I wanted without pigeon-holing the response of those I was interviewing” (Bryman, 2008, p.438). There are however, a number of disadvantages to consider before attempting an interview using the semi-structured method. As an individual constructing the interview, you would need to be experienced and have the necessary skills required, both to conduct the interview but also to analyse the data appropriately. A semi-structured interview is also considered to be time consuming, particularly in comparison to a structured interview which would take less time to conduct but also less time to analyse the data. Furthermore, as with most interviews, assuring confidentiality is essential but also difficult to achieve. For many, the whole concept of a semi-structured or an unstructured interview could be seen as simply a qualitative interview, though the difference between the two is vast and therefore have been given their own titles (Bryman, 2008).
Unstructured interviews then are far more open and although there may be some preset questions to follow, the whole process of the interview is covered by themes and more general ideas in an ‘interview guide’ as opposed to specific questioning (Bryman, 2008). Bryman goes on, “The style of questioning is usually very informal. The phrasing and sequencing of questions will vary from interview to interview” (Bryman, 2008, p.700). This interview style is more often used in general research about a topic or idea. “Here the researcher uses at most an aide-memoire as a brief set of prompts to him- or herself to deal with a certain range of topics” (Bryman, 2008, p.438). The process could involve many separate participants with the interviewer attempting to settle the interviewee and really get to know them. In ensuring confidentiality, the interviewer can dig deep to find more personal answers. “Unstructured interviewing tends to be very similar in character to a conversation” (Burgess, 1984). This is something perhaps unachievable in a semi-structured interview and certainly in a fully structured interview. Although in theory this is a big advantage to the idea of an unstructured interview, in reality it could well be a disadvantage as building up such a rapport could take much, much more time than what is allocated for a single interview. Furthermore, any significant data is harder to gather and analyse, as it would not be in a structured format. Even if the interview went as planned, it could even over succeed to the point where the interviewee is simply giving the researcher information, should this happen the process ceases to become an interview. There are however two style of interview which could add a slightly different slant to the responses of the interviewee as Kvale explains, “Interviews differ in their openness of purpose; the interviewer can explain the purpose and pose direct questions from the start or can adopt a roundabout approach, with indirect questions, and reveal the purpose only when the interview is over” (Kvale, 2007, p.57).
To conclude, although many see the idea of qualitative research as a more relaxed environment in which to conduct research, perhaps using either the semi-structured or unstructured method does not guarantee the collection of sufficient data. Particularly with regards to an unstructured interview, although these do offer stress free yet intimate conversation, what is ultimately needed from an interview is data of which can be easily analysed. That is something in my opinion the semi-structured interview can achieve, both a relaxed easy going conversation but also something from which data can be found. The theory itself takes the best aspects from both an unstructured interview and a structured one in order to come to a successful compromise; it is the best of both worlds.
Bibliography
Alan Bryman, (2008), Social Research Methods, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, R. G. (1984), In the Field. An introduction to field research, London: George Allen & Unwin.
Steinar Kvale, (2007), Doing Interviews, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
The Word Stable 