Disadvantages of different types of interviews

When analyzing the disadvantages of interviews in different formats like focus groups, telephone interviews, emails, and face-to-face settings, it’s essential to consider both logistical and methodological challenges.

Focus groups

In focus groups, one major disadvantage is the potential for dominant participants to skew the conversation. Some individuals naturally speak more than others, and their opinions may overshadow quieter members. This dominance can distort the group’s dynamics and suppress diverse perspectives. Additionally, focus groups are prone to groupthink, where participants feel pressure to conform to the majority opinion rather than express their true thoughts. This social conformity can limit the authenticity of the data collected.

The success of focus groups heavily depends on the moderator’s ability to balance the conversation and engage all participants equally, which can be challenging. Poor moderation may lead to some participants feeling excluded or less willing to contribute. Another drawback is the logistical difficulty of scheduling sessions that work for multiple people. Finding a common time for everyone can delay the process and reduce participation. Finally, focus groups often limit the depth of responses because participants must share time, preventing a more comprehensive exploration of individual perspectives.

Face-to-face interviews

Face-to-face interviews provide the richest data in terms of depth and personal connection, but they are not without drawbacks. One significant disadvantage is the time-consuming nature of these interviews. Coordinating schedules, arranging locations, and conducting in-person meetings can take up a considerable amount of time, both for the researcher and the participants. This process can be especially challenging if travel is involved. Another limitation is the potential for social desirability bias. When participants are sitting directly in front of an interviewer, they may feel pressure to give socially acceptable responses rather than expressing their true thoughts. This can skew the data and reduce its authenticity. Face-to-face interviews also tend to be more expensive.

The costs associated with travel, venue rental, and participant compensation can add up, making this method less feasible for larger-scale studies. Additionally, interviewer bias can inadvertently influence the participant’s responses. Non-verbal cues, facial expressions, or even the tone of voice from the interviewer can shape how the participant answers, potentially impacting the data. Finally, logistical challenges, such as finding a comfortable, neutral, and private space for sensitive interviews, can affect the quality of the responses, especially if participants feel uncomfortable or rushed.

Telephone interviews

Telephone interviews, while convenient, present several unique challenges. One of the biggest limitations is the absence of visual cues. Without body language or facial expressions, it becomes more difficult for interviewers to gauge emotions, discomfort, or hesitations, which can provide valuable context. The lack of visual connection also makes it harder to establish rapport with participants, potentially leading to shorter, less engaging conversations. This medium can feel impersonal, and distractions in the participant’s environment can further reduce their focus and engagement. Technical issues, such as poor call quality or dropped connections, can interrupt the flow of the interview and lead to incomplete or misunderstood responses. Telephone interviews are often shorter than face-to-face ones, as participants tend to give briefer responses without the same level of engagement. This can limit the richness of the data collected. Participants may hesitate to discuss sensitive topics over the phone, leading to less candid responses.

Psychological effects in interviews

During interviews, several psychological effects can emerge that could influence both the interviewer’s and the participant’s behaviour and responses. Here are some key psychological effects to consider and reflect on:

Social desirability bias

Social desirability bias occurs when participants adjust their responses to align with what they believe is socially acceptable or favourable in the eyes of the interviewer. This is particularly common in interviews where sensitive or controversial topics are discussed. Participants might downplay behaviours or opinions they perceive as undesirable and emphasize those they believe are more acceptable. This can lead to inaccurate or skewed data, as the true feelings or behaviours of the participant are not fully revealed.

The Hawthorne effect

A peculiar disadvantage of interviews is what’s known as the “Hawthorne effect.” This is similar to the social desirability bias as it occurs when participants alter their behaviour simply because they know they’re being observed or interviewed. Named after a series of studies in the 1920s at the Hawthorne Works factory (Levitt & List, 2011), this effect can lead participants to give answers they think the interviewer wants to hear or to behave differently during the interview than they would in their everyday lives. Essentially, the very act of being interviewed can change how people respond, making it tricky to get entirely authentic data.

The Hawthorne effect is named after a series of studies conducted at Chicago’s Western Electric Hawthorne Works factory in the 1920s-1930s. Researchers were investigating how different working conditions, like lighting levels, affected worker productivity. They found that productivity improved whenever any change was made, even when the conditions were actually worsened, simply because the workers knew they were being observed. This effect showed that the mere presence of researchers and attention to workers’ activities could influence behaviour, leading to increased productivity regardless of the specific changes made.

The telephone effect

The “telephone effect” occurs when the lack of visual context can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or a loss of subtle emotional cues. Unlike face-to-face interviews, where body language, facial expressions, and other non-verbal cues play a significant role in communication, phone or virtual interviews rely heavily on voice alone. As a result, the richness of the data might be compromised, making it harder for the interviewer to fully grasp the participant’s emotions or intentions.

One famous example of the “telephone effect” impacting data collection is the Hite Report on female sexuality, conducted by Shere Hite in the 1970s. While the report was groundbreaking in its findings, Hite collected much of her data through written questionnaires rather than face-to-face interviews (Shere, 1976). This reliance on non-personal communication methods, similar to the “telephone effect,” may have led to some misinterpretations or a lack of depth in responses, as participants could not clarify their thoughts or emotions in real-time with an interviewer. Critics argued that the lack of direct interaction might have affected the authenticity and richness of the data.

Recall bias

Recall bias happens when participants have difficulty remembering past events, leading to incomplete or altered recollections. This bias can be particularly problematic in interviews, as the quality of qualitative data often relies on participants’ ability to provide detailed accounts of their experiences. Participants may unintentionally omit details, blend multiple events, or reconstruct memories based on their beliefs or emotions. This can lead to data that is not fully reliable or representative.

Paradox of self-disclosure

The “paradox of self-disclosure.” During interviews, participants might start guarded but gradually become more open as they build rapport with the interviewer. Interestingly, this can sometimes lead to them sharing more personal or sensitive information than originally intended. However, after the interview, participants might experience “disclosure regret,” where they feel uncomfortable or worried about having shared too much. This phenomenon can impact participants’ feelings toward their involvement in the study and affect their responses if follow-up interviews are conducted.

The paradox of self-disclosure was evident in Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1973), where participants gradually disclosed more about themselves and adopted behaviours they might not have anticipated. As the simulated prison environment intensified, some participants (playing the role of guards) began to exhibit increasingly aggressive behaviour, while others (playing the role of prisoners) became more submissive. Many of the participants later expressed regret or discomfort with how deeply they had engaged in their roles and the personal aspects of themselves they revealed during the experiment, highlighting the paradox where initial openness led to uncomfortable self-disclosure as the study progressed.

Conclusion

Interviews are a powerful qualitative research method that can provide deep insights into human experiences and behaviours but come with disadvantages. The interview process is time-consuming and resource-intensive. Additionally, the lack of anonymity and the challenges of cross-cultural and language barriers further complicate the use of interviews in qualitative research.

Despite these challenges, interviews remain a valuable tool in the qualitative researcher’s arsenal, particularly when the research question demands a deeper understanding of complex phenomena. However, qualitative researchers must be mindful of the disadvantages of interviews and take steps to mitigate these challenges wherever possible, ensuring that the data collected is both of high quality and ethically sound. By carefully considering these factors, research teams can conduct interviews that provide valuable insights while minimizing the associated risks and limitations.

References

Hite, Shere. (1976). The Hite report : a nationwide study on female sexuality. New York :Macmillan,
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2011). Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.1.224
Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243-256.