Nowadays, information has become one of the most valuable assets: research and data analytics is an essential consideration in decision making. In a data-driven society, it is a priority to ensure that the collected data can be trusted. Personal or face-to-face interviews are the most reliable way of getting information; however, it comes with shortcomings such as requiring more resources for the conduction.
Personal interviews have been used on every level of decision-making and continue to be one of the most frequently used techniques not only for gathering scientific data but also in making hiring or admission decisions. Various benefits of face-to-face interview surveys made the US Federal Government committed to using this survey method rather than the phone interviews or self-administered questionnaires for the most high-sensitive research (National Science Foundation, 2015). The government makes decisions, impacting large groups of people, so being able to generate the highest response rate and most dependable results is the main priority in their choice of the approach.
Personal interviews help to prescreen potential participants, making it possible to include only persons of interest, providing more reliable results. They also enable targeting groups of people who might not have a computer or a phone to participate in the survey that requires having access to technology. The usage of personal interviews is common when the research does not have a strict structure and looks for collecting qualitative data (Oltmann, 2016). Being able to interact with the respondent allows discussing more complex issues, using various visual aids such as images, maps, and calendars. Differences in cultural values and social characteristics and not having a good comprehension of the language might influence respondent’s answers: having an experienced interviewer could help overcome those barriers.
While the physical presence of the interviewer has advantages, several issues require extra attention. “Interviewer bias” could be considered one of the costliest issues with the interviewing: swaying the interpretation of the answers by the interviewee’s appearance and behavior. Therefore, interviewers must go through extensive training to learn how to stay objective and not influence the participant’s response in any way. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a comprehensive recruitment process for interviewers to ensure a high level of preparation and ability to deal with sensitive information (CDC, 2017). However, even after training, interviewers might not get honest answers because respondents might be uncomfortable talking to a stranger.
A personal interview is the most expensive method: in addition to the initial investment into the training, there are costs associated with traveling, conducting interviews, analyzing the results, and following up with the respondents. Budgetary constraints prevent getting more participants, potentially resulting in nonrandom sampling. Another obstacle is not being able to gather information faster: if a researcher needs data on a pressing issue such as politics or current events, a phone or a web-based interview might be the better option, allowing for a fast response.
With constraints such as budget and time limitations, it is essential to carefully consider each survey method, accounting for their strengths and weaknesses. The first step in the selection process should always be decided on a clear objective because it makes it evident which way would possibly work best for collecting data. However, if one specific approach does not satisfy one’s needs, it is possible to combine multiple methods.
References
National Science Foundation (2015).The future of survey research: Challenges and opportunities. Web.
Oltmann, S. (2016). Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts.Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(2). 1-16. Web.