- I wonder whether it is better to conduct a structured interview or an unstructured interview. Sure, a structured interview can often resemble survey research, therefore being more useful for our studies. However, I feel like unstructured interviews could give more insight into the topic that the interviewer might not have thought about beforehand. For example, if an interviewer is asking questions in order to get a census of events that are occurring in local communities, allowing the interviewee to respond in a way that opens the door to new ideas would be a lot more useful than just getting a yes or no answer from them.
- The first chapter mentions how Amy Schalet used a semi-structured interview approach to get the opinions of people from American and the Netherlands on adolescent sexuality. When asked about this technique, Amy explained that it offered an almost “friendly” atmosphere by just letting the conversation flow instead of pausing multiple times to switch the question. I personally believe that this would be the best approach for an interview, purely because of the fact that the friendly environment will make the interviewee more willing to open up more about the topic and feel safe doing so. I believe that this is a practice that should be implemented in our research.
- Although conducting a semi-structured interview gives the interviewer a lot more freedom, it also brings along more challenges. Amy Schalet went on to mention that the difficulty in conducting that kind of interview, especially on a controversial topic, is keeping the interviewee just inside their comfort zone. Since certain topics can often result in major emotional responses, it is important to ensure that you do not push them over the edge. While this is easier in a structured interview, since the interviewer can easily skip a question or move on to the next topic, if necessary, semi-structured interviews can often require complete 180’s from the current discussion to prevent an emotional reaction.
- It is interesting to me how increasing the number of participants in a single interview can make a difference to the results. Chapter 2 starts out by discussing how focus groups can be effective in finding a meaningful conclusion to a complex topic. The authors explain how using focus groups as a method for research can allow people to think collectively instead of individually. One person who is interviewed about a problem in their community may answer the question with a bit of bias, based on how the problem affected them and how educated they are on topic However, a group of people would be able to bounce ideas off each other and reach a collective conclusion.
- Focus groups, just like semi-structured interviews, require a lot of attention and care. Audrey Kobayashi, a researcher who often works with focus groups, described how focus groups need a good facilitator to ensure the conversation flows smoothly. If only two people are actually engaged in the conversation, the facilitator needs to be able to slow the discussion down and allow for the more shy participants to get a say. If the topic being discussed can lead to different responses from different groups of people, the facilitator must be able to split the group accordingly.