ISSN 2039-2117 (online) ISSN 2039-9340 (print) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy Vol 5 No 16 July 2014 60 Critiquing Interviewing as a Data Collection Method Costa Hofisi North-West University, South Africa costa.hofisi@nwu.ac.za Miriam Hofisi North-West University, South Africa Stephen Mago Great Zimbabwe University Doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n16p60 Abstract Interviewing is one of the data collection methods which are employed when one adopts the qualitative methodology to conduct research. This article relies on extensive literature review to critique interviewing as a data collection method. Although interviews have various forms and styles, it is important to note that there is no one interview style that fits every occasion or all respondents. The interviewer must work diligently to ensure the validity and reliability of the interview data otherwise, interviewers themselves, can turn out to be weaknesses due to their own bias, subjectivities and lack of interviewing skills. It is also important to note that interviewers themselves become part of the “interviewing picture” by asking questions and responding to the respondent and sometimes even sharing their experiences with interviewees; working with the interview data, selecting from it, interpreting and describing and analysing it regardless of their discipline and dedication in keeping the interview data as the product of the respondent. Weaknesses of interviewing have been both discussed and critiqued from different theoretical perspectives which are “postmodern, feminist, sociolinguistic” “conversation analytic”, “ethnomethodological perspectives” and even data analysis. Keywords: Interview, semi-structured interview, unstructured interview, in-depth interview 1. Introduction Researchers use a variety of techniques to conduct research. These techniques fall into two main categories which are quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Interviewing is one of the data collection methods which are employed when one adopts the qualitative methodology to conduct research (Byrne: undated). Babbie and Mouton (2011:289) define a qualitative interview as “an interaction between an interviewer and a respondent in which the interviewer has a general plan of inquiry but not a specific set of questions that must be asked in particular words and in a particular order”. An interview can also be defined as a purposeful conversation (Berg: 1989, Dexter: 1970; Guba: 1985). Mishler (1986) on qualitative research interviews observes that: At its heart, it is a process that an interview is a form of discourse. Its particular features reflect the distinctive structure and aims of interviewing, namely, that it is a discourse shaped and organized by asking and answering questions. An interview is a joint product of what interviewees and interviewers talk about together and how they talk with each other. The record of an interview that we researchers make and then use in our work of analysis and interpretation is a representation of that talk. Therefore, it is important to note that an interview involves at least two people who are the interviewer and the interviewee. While the interviewer asks the questions the interviewee is there to respond to the questions asked by the interviewer. However, it is important to note that “there is no single interview style that fits every occasion or all respondents” (Denzin & Lincoln siting Converse & Schuman: 1974). Moreover, Seidman (1998) writes that “Interviewing covers a wide range of practices” (including face-to-face, focus group interviews and telephonic interviews). There are “tightly structured, survey interviews with preset, standardised,