A critical investigation of the merits and drawbacks of in-depth interviews

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1  Introduction  1

2  The benefits of individual in-depth interviews  2

2.1  General aspects  2

2.2  The depth of data and the focus on perceptions  2

2.3  Individuality of in-depth interviews  3

2.4  Involvement of the researcher  3

3  Possible drawbacks of in-depth interviewing  4

3.1  Costs and time  4

3.2  Interviewer bias and interpretation  4

3.3  Simplification of complexity through themes  5

3.4  Limitation of cases and lack of interaction with peers  5

4  Excursion: The application of in-depth interviews in tourism research  6

5  Conclusions Recommendations: When to use or avoid in-depth  

  interviews  7

  Reference List  9

  Bibliography  9

II

1 Introduction

When commencing to plan a study, researchers face the oftentimes challenging task to decide on the adequate research method for their investigation problem at hand. Since the appropriateness of a study, as well as its ability to be accepted as scientific research, depend very much on the correct choice of the applied research method(s), the decision process for the latter constitutes a crucial phase of the overall research operation.

As many researchers encounter ambiguities when it comes to selecting the suitable research technique, this paper provides a critical reflection on several arguments for and against the employment of in-depth interviews, one of the most common tools used in qualitative research.

The aim of this paper is, therefore, to consider the strengths and weaknesses of in-depth interviews from various angles, in order to advance the perspicuity of the question in which situations it is apt to use interviews as a research tool and when to better search for alternative methods.

To arrive at this objective, four main issues have been explored through a review of already existing literature. First, the merits of individual in-depth interviews are examined. Then the paper addresses the question of what possible drawbacks one may come across when selecting in-depth interviewing as a research method. Furthermore, a short comment on the application of indepth interviews in qualitative tourism research is given. Finally, in the conclusions/recommendations section it is explained for which types of investigations the in-depth interview is the appropriate research technique.

As indicated above, the main focus of this paper is not on providing a guide for the general set-up and implication process of an in-depth interview. The main spotlight is rather on the enhancement of the detailed knowledge of researchers on in-depth interviews, with the ultimate goal to make a contribution to increase the number of cases where research methods have been appropriately chosen. Hence, a certain level of previous knowledge about in-depth interviewing is expected from the reader in order to be able to follow the content of this paper.

1

2 The benefits of individual in-depth interviews

2.1 General aspects

While other research methods, as for instance focus groups, are more common and popular among many research communities all around the world due to various, sometimes arguable advantages (e.g. time restraints or costs), the individual in-depth interview offers the unique possibility for the respondent to: really analyse – frequently for the first time – the motivations for a particular action feel empowered due to the unusualness of being listened to, combined with the anonymity afforded (Berent 1966, n.p.a. quoted in Stokes/Bergin 2006, p. 28).

This stated feeling of empowerment of the respondent leads to a benefit for the researcher that cannot be obtained through other means of questioning people, namely the advantage that the respondents talk freely and very detailed about their experiences.

2.2 The depth of data and the focus on perceptions

The above mentioned level of detail of the information obtained, as well as its clarity, is generally regarded as the most important reasoning for the employment of in-depth interviews as a research tool.

It is widely accepted that with in-depth interviews the researcher is able to investigate on the respondents' attitudinal level to a higher extent than it is possible with alternative research methods (Stokes/Bergin 2006, p. 33). CROUCH and McKENZIE (2006, p. 485) suggest that "[in-depth interviews] target the respondents' perceptions and feelings rather than the social conditions surrounding those experiences".

This focus on the individual perceptions, subjective in nature, combined with the fact that with personal interviews all group-related patterns of behaviour are eliminated, allows the researcher to get a deep and above all authentic insight on how the subjects act and react in certain situations.

2