We continue the series of articles addressing different issues within qualitative research methodology. Following on from last month’s article looking into issues around ‘size’ and focus groups, Jennifer Cassels looks at the pros and cons of other ‘types’ of interview methods, including one to ones.
Jennifer Squire 
19 Feb, 2008
Qualitative Corner: Issues in Qualitative Research Methodology
Previously I
discussed one of the key questions we ask ourselves when reading a project
brief and writing a project proposal. How do we best meet the objectives? Is
it through groups, one to one interviews, trios etc? In
January, I looked at
group discussions and the idea that more is often less, with a high number
of participants potentially having a negative impact on the discussion and
outcomes. This month, I will look at other interview methodologies, their roles
in market research and some of their shortfalls.
Firstly, let’s take a look at one to one or ‘depth’ interviews. One to one interviews are just what they say they are; a discussion with an interviewer and one participant, generally for about an hour. One to one interviews are adopted for many different types of research project and are a highly effective method in which detailed information and insights can be gained. Our full attention is directed towards one participant, listening intently to their views, questioning in detail the whys and wherefores for their responses. It is the ideal setting to dig deep to understand how someone feels about something, what drives them or the reasons for behaviour without social pressure from others. Because it is one person asking the questions and one person responding, they are often considered to be the ‘easiest’ of all types of market research interviews to conduct. While this is true, one to ones are not devoid of potential problems.
We have probably all sat and watched a one to one interview with a participant that is rather ‘hard work’. They don’t want to respond to questions and when they do their answers are short and sharp. And getting them to complete a task can be, well a bit challenging to say the least. For any moderator this can be a very uncomfortable environment. For those watching on the other side of the glass or remotely from a PC such interviews are frustrating. If it happens once in a day it can be laughed off, however seeing interviews like this one after the other is exasperating, with the client feeling like they are not only wasting their time but also money. It takes a skilled interviewer to get this best out of such situations. Controlling the interview, building a relationship and making sure the participant has no option but to contribute to the discussion are key to turning such a situation around. It may still be hard work but at least the interview will not be wasted.
This is also where well thought through and effective recruitment can play a crucial role in making the most out one to one interviews or in fact any qualitative research. It pays not to rush screener development and to really think through the desired profile of potential participants. A well thought out screener can pay dividends to the research outcomes.
We can experience less willing or difficult people in any discussion, whether
it be with only one participant or with ten, it is just less obvious when it
happens in a group situation. Having a few ‘difficult’ participants
reflects real life. Not all healthcare professionals are welcoming towards
the pharma industry and seeing this first hand can provide useful insights
into how to approach and communicate with all different healthcare professional
personalities.
Duos and trios are another important method of interviewing. They tend to
be used less often than one to ones or groups but have a valuable place within
market research methodology. These approaches work well in situations where
we want to strike up debate between participants or need some creative thinking
within the discussion but feel that the tasks or techniques being used are
less suitable for a bigger group. For example a timeline technique may work
more effectively in a duo as it can be difficult to grasp and takes time to
implement or you may be reviewing a large volume of materials which, with too
many participants could take too long to cover or not be covered in enough
detail. We may also be looking to interview a customer type limited in number.
It might be near impossible to get 4, 5 or 6 recruited for a group in the one
location but feasible to recruit two or three. So logistics do come into play.
So what influences the choice of interview method? We need to take into account a number of factors:
- The research needs or objectives are a key consideration
- Timings and budget also play a role
- As does the type/s of customer/s being researched
Certain research needs or objectives are generally the most dominant factor in the decision and steer us towards different methodologies.
One to one interviews are often chosen when the requirements of the research are such that we need to explore personal opinions, beliefs or values. A few examples of this include:
- Identifying the details of behaviour
- Understanding attitudes and beliefs
- Communication material testing, such as key messages or detail aid testing
Group discussions are often highly valuable in other situations:
- Flushing out underlying prejudices and mores
- Capturing an overview of collective attitudes / sentiments Or
- When creative thinking is required or when new streams of thinking are needed, for example to generate ideas around support/communication needs, especially in the early stages of development or the development of concepts or positioning.
What duo and trio interviews have to offer is a mix of some of the focus of an individual interview with the interactive spark of the group. This hybrid setting allows us to stop and focus on one respondent to explore a particular point of interest and difference. At the same time it allows respondents to react to one another, to build on and sometimes challenge the ideas of others. In this connection interaction between three or four people is generally a far more comfortable and natural social setting, this contrasts with the heightened tensions of large group settings.
So when reading a brief the decision to conduct a group, a trio, one to ones
is not always a straightforward one. All methods have their pros and cons and
often one method may not be enough to fully cover all the research objectives.
There is no rule to say we can’t use a mix of methodologies within one
project. Careful consideration should always be taken when making this decision
and it should not be rushed because the wrong decision may negatively impact
the research outcomes.
Your response:
Login to respond to this article: