What is the responsibility of quantitative family researchers to be familiar with and contribute to interviewing methods research? On the one hand, complex interviewing methods are nothing new to quantitative family researchers: writing useful interview questions, choosing interviewing techniques and formats, recruiting and training interviewers, considering the effect of technology choices on participants and coders, creating coding manuals, training coders, and maintaining coder reliability are just a few methods issues family quantitative researchers study and consider before collecting or analyzing interview data.
On the other hand, there are some interview methods that are considered more often by qualitative than quantitative researchers. These include the way culture, emotional tone, and speech or linguistic differences influence interviewer question delivery, participant question interpretation, and researcher or coder interpretation of participant responses.
Consider that quantitative researchers have increasingly turned to statistical methods, such as latent class analysis, to model heterogeneity. As a result, the quality of quantitative family research has improved. What effect does participant heterogeneity have on interview data? Can we afford to assume that participants interpret questions uniformly or that interviewers deliver them reliably? Have we established that interviewer uniformity improves the reliability and validity of interview data?
It seems likely that we can improve family interview data collection if we study and draw from the full spectrum of disciplines and approaches - from ethnography to multivariate statistics. There are many unresolved interviewing methods issues, particularly for researchers interested in family systems who collect data from multiple family members.
Here is an interesting - and perhaps provocative - passage on this issue taken from Mishler (1991), Research interviewing: Context and narrative, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
"Lazarsfeld (1935), one of the great pioneers of survey research, understood that variability in how interviewers ask questions is the key to good interviewing and not a problem to be solved by standardization. He recommends a different approach than appears to have been adopted by successive generations of researchers. He refers to the ''principle of division," the aim of which is to adapt "the pattern of our questionnaire to the structural pattern of the experience of the respondent" (p. 4). He recognized that the attempt to fit the questions to respondents' different experiences was, even then, in conflict with usual procedure and traditional opinion for questions to be worded in the same way for all respondents. Instead he argues, "we advocate a rather loose and liberal handling of a questionnaire by an interviewer. It seems to us much more important that the question be fixed in its meaning, than in the wording" (p. 4). Of course, to follow this principle would require tape-recording interviews so that the "meaning" of the questions asked by different interviewers could be determined; as we have seen, such studies are rare."
I agree that there is a thin line between interview methods for qualitative and quantitative family research. I think that both qualitative and quantitative interview methods have strengths and weaknesses. Family researchers need to utilize the strengths of both interview methods in order to minimize their weakness. The quote by Lazarsfeld (1935) is much supported by current researchers in sociology (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995) and family social science (Daly, 2007). As family social scientists, I think that we would do an injustice to the people we interview if we do not allow for different responses, interpretations, and lived experiences. This seems necessary for both qualitative and quantitative researchers to consider and incorporate into their interviews.
Posted by: Amanda at January 26, 2008 10:44 AMI agree that qualitative and quantitative methods have much to offer one another and can be very complimentary. The trend in the field to blend these methods into an all-encompassing hybrid introduces some really exciting possibilities.
Although most educational programs encourage learning in both qualitative and quantitative methods, I wonder about researchers' tendencies to prefer one type of method over another. Where does it come from? I would assume background, training and personality all have a lot to do with these preferences.
So what then does it look like when researchers with different preferences begin to work together on a multi-method project? Especially if boundaries between the two methods seem to be fading? It seems to me it would be an amazing opportunity to develop both breadth and depth in a given topic of family studies.
Posted by: Sam at January 26, 2008 4:38 PMIs there a thin line or a wide chasm between qualitative and quantitative family research interviewing methods? Is it a question of methods or of paradigms? Given that methodology is driven by theory, isn’t it to some extent our worldview that drives our methodology and not purely the research questions we pose? Is it just a matter of responsibility for quantitative researchers to be familiar with these interviewing methods? Shouldn’t they and/or we also be responsible for at least familiarizing themselves and/or ourselves (not necessarily adhering to) with the underlying epistemological frameworks that drive different methodological approaches in family research interviewing? I think we would all agree that a Holstein and Gubrium (1995) approach to interviewing is quite different from an approach that utilizes coding manuals and coder reliability; this line doesn’t seem so thin to me. Yet as the next generation of family researchers, can we and do we have a responsibility to narrow the chasm? By educating ourselves in both methods/paradigms and employing a both/and approach, I think we can make our family data collection richer and more complete.
Posted by: Bibiana at January 27, 2008 10:44 AMIs there a thin line or a wide chasm between qualitative and quantitative family research interviewing methods? Is it a question of methods or of paradigms? Given that methodology is driven by theory, isn’t it to some extent our worldview that drives our methodology and not purely the research questions we pose? Is it just a matter of responsibility for quantitative researchers to be familiar with these interviewing methods? Shouldn’t they and/or we also be responsible for at least familiarizing themselves and/or ourselves (not necessarily adhering to) with the underlying epistemological frameworks that drive different methodological approaches in family research interviewing? I think we would all agree that a Holstein and Gubrium (1995) approach to interviewing is quite different from an approach that utilizes coding manuals and coder reliability; this line doesn’t seem so thin to me. Yet as the next generation of family researchers, can we and do we have a responsibility to narrow the chasm? By educating ourselves in both methods/paradigms and employing a both/and approach, I think we can make our family data collection richer and more complete.
Posted by: Bibiana at January 27, 2008 10:45 AMI think there is a thin line between the interview methods used in qualitative and quantitative research. I experienced this myself already, through my qualitative research course and my past research experience. Interviewing in each of these cases was very similar-the differences became much clearer during the coding process.
I completely agree with Sam-mixed methods seems the way to go. I think the combination brings more depth to research. I know that I am interested in learning as much as I can about both areas.
As for the question of interviewer/interviewee uniformity-
I don’t think we can assume that participants will interpret the questions the same, or that all will interpret them in the same way as the interviewer. But it seems to me that this is common knowledge and the purpose of probes and backup questions is to limit contrasting interpretations. I feel the bigger problem comes with the differences between interviewers, who may ask questions differently and not even have the same ideas of what they are after. This must be why some researchers prefer to have one person do all the interviews!
Being new I family social science I did not realize the existence of problem in survey research raised by Lazarsfeld (1935), but it resonates with my academic experience as a linguist. Fixing meaning of the question instead of wording can be guideline in interview design. I have already faced this problem when the interview is to focus on immigrant group, but some potential respondents are not pleased to be named ‘immigrants’. The solution was to use another wording ‘people who lived in the US for N years’.
Posted by: Polina at January 28, 2008 12:10 PMso informative, thanks to tell us.
Posted by: Meaffrautle at September 29, 2010 8:19 PM