What are in-depth interviews?

In-depth interviews is an individual conversation conducted according to a pre-developed scenario. In-depth interview involves receiving detailed answers to questions from the respondent, rather than filling out a formal questionnaire. Although the interviewer follows a general outline for the interview, the order of questions and their wording can vary significantly depending on what the respondent says. Using in-depth interview method the respondent’s statements are not influenced by others (as happens, for example, in focus groups).

In-depth interviews are based on the use of techniques that encourage respondents to engage in lengthy and detailed discussions on a range of issues of interest to the researcher. This allows you to get to the smallest details, to find out all aspects of the behavior and reactions of respondents that may be important for solving research problems. Carrying out in-depth interview requires a very highly qualified interviewer. The interview is conducted in person in the absence of unauthorized persons, or by telephone, if this is permitted by the nature of the study.

In-depth interview can last from 30 minutes to 3-4 hours, depending on the objectives of the study and the characteristics of the respondent.

Most often, in-depth interviewing involves interviewing one person, but there are modifications of this method when 2 or 3 respondents take part in the conversation. The conversation is recorded on audio or video tape. The recording is processed, as a result of which the researcher receives the text of the entire interview (“transcript”). An analytical report is written based on the transcript. Video recording is also used to take into account the non-verbal reactions of respondents in the analysis. The respondent typically receives a gift as a reward for participating in a lengthy conversation. Among personal interviews this method

in-depth interviews is the most expensive.

The sample size depends on the research objectives and budget of the study.

As a rule, within the framework of one study, at least 20-30

in-depth interviews. Comparison of in-depth interview and focus group When is an in-depth interview preferable to a focus group? Individual in-depth interviews

• more preferable than
• group discussions
• , in the following cases:
• the topic is difficult to discuss and requires specific knowledge (interviews with experts/professionals). it is necessary to conduct interviews with competitors (they will not talk about the subject of research during group discussions). a deep understanding of complex social roles is necessary, or it is necessary to turn to the biography of the respondent, the analysis of a single case, in order to identify possible factors that influenced the formation of his ideas.
• the topic touches on the deeply personal, intimate experiences of respondents, which cannot be discussed in a wide circle (for example, a survey of people with
• various diseases
• regarding the choice of medical institution).
• Within one society there are unspoken prohibitions on discussing any problems.

Advantages of the “in-depth interview” technique

What are the benefits of in-depth interviews?

• obtaining longitudinal information for each respondent (purchase process; stages of decision-making);
• full representation of both “majority” and “minority” opinions due to the absence of the influence of dominant individuals and problems associated with group processes;
• the opportunity to discuss intimate or purely personal topics;
• lack of psychological pressure from people in your circle;
• overcoming certain recruiting difficulties;
• overcoming the tendency to express widely held, socially acceptable points of view;
• the possibility of more detailed segmentation of the population of respondents compared to group discussions.

Contents of work using the “in-depth interview” technique

• determination of the purpose, object and subject of research;
• preparing a conversation script;
• selection of respondents for in-depth interviews;
• conducting in-depth interviews;
• processing interview results;
• analytical description of the research results;
• preparing of report.

Approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia as teaching aid for higher education students educational institutions, studying in the areas of training bachelors and masters “Sociology”, “Political Science” and in the specialties of training certified specialists “Sociology”, “Psychology”, “Political Science” and “Marketing”.

Third edition, revised

Moscow 2018

BBK 60.5, 66.0, 65.290

Belanovsky Sergey Alexandrovich

In-depth interviews and focus groups: tutorial.

ISBN 5-901488-03-2

This book is an educational and methodological manual on conducting in-depth interviews and focus groups in sociological research. Both methods are widely used in electoral and marketing projects, organizational research, advertising, shadow economy, crime and deviant behavior, studying family problems and many others. The publication of the book aims to expand the methodological base used in social research Russian and Russian-speaking researchers. Compared to the 2001 edition, the book has been significantly revised.

For sociologists, psychologists, economists, journalists, teachers and students.

Problems of increasing the adequacy of quantitative tools.

For sociologists accustomed to working with formalized questionnaires, in-depth interviews can help in two ways. First of all, its use will help the sociologist understand the limits of applicability and the limitations of the questionnaire method. Secondly, an in-depth interview will be an effective means of checking the quality of questionnaires and at the same time a means of finalizing them. Often, after conducting the first interviews, the researcher becomes aware of the need for a radical revision of the questionnaire he created.

The use of in-depth interviews when developing sociological questionnaires will be one of the forms of pilot surveys. In connection with this, it is advisable to make a number of comments regarding pilot surveys in general. Domestic methodological sources traditionally indicate the need to conduct pilot studies when developing sociological tools, but this issue is usually given very little space and the methodological features of this important stage are traditionally not disclosed enough.

A typical description of a pilot study in the domestic literature looks like this: “A pilot study in sociology is a pilot study of a predominantly methodological nature, the purpose of which is to test the quality of a tool for collecting sociological information. During the piloting process, a draft (model) of the methodology is developed, which is then tested under conditions close to those of mass field research. In this case, the extent of loss and distortion of information is determined due to the presence of linguistic, psychological and other barriers and those circumstances in the survey situation that were not taken into account when developing the research program and methods. Usually, during piloting, a survey of 50-100 people is considered sufficient, selected so that all groups of respondents that are significant for the purposes of the study are included in the sample.”

The above description is quoted not only because it is typical, but also because it reflects the reality of

Russian sociology practice. By the way, this is real practice. The above 50-100 people are gathered in the hall, they are given a draft questionnaire and asked to fill out. The collected questionnaires are reviewed and analyzed. In this case, indeed, certain signals arise that certain questions are not working well. Such signals include:

a) low completion rate of some questions or a high percentage of answers like “I don’t know” or “I don’t know.” This is perhaps one of the main signals that the question is either incomprehensible, or touches on “closed areas” in the respondent’s mind, or presents too much high requirements to the memory of the respondent, or suffers from other similar defects;

b) in semi-closed and sometimes closed questions, respondents enter answers that do not coincide with any of the closed questions. If the number of such responses exceeds 5-7%, then this is an unconditional signal to finalize the list of closures;

c) some respondents write explanations in the margins of the questionnaire, sometimes very lengthy. It must be remembered that such records can serve as a source for including additional questions in the questionnaire and changing its structure;

d) some respondents approach the sociologists conducting the survey and talk with them. Sometimes these conversations refer to individual questions in the questionnaire that caused difficulties, sometimes they turn into a discussion of the entire issue raised in the questionnaire. Conversations of this kind often turn out to be useful for sociologists and influence the final development of tools, but the current practice is such that these conversations will not be a specially planned methodological stage, they take place without a methodological plan developed in advance and are not strictly recorded.

Thus, it can be noted that the established practice of conducting pilot surveys, in principle, gives sociologists certain signals on how to finalize the questionnaire. However, the real value of these signals is, in general, small. The fact is that a practically working sociologist, who is familiar with the available methodological literature and has personally taken part in conducting several surveys, acquires the skill of avoiding gross mistakes when compiling questionnaires. Filling out questionnaires by respondents during pilot surveys often goes “smoothly,” in the sense that respondents do not experience any particular difficulties, and the questionnaire undergoes only minor changes as a result of such piloting. At the same time, as will be shown below, the “smoothness” of filling out does not mean the high quality of the questionnaire.

Before we begin describing our recommendations for conducting pilot studies, it should be noted that there are, or at least should be, several types of pilot studies. It is worth saying that it should become commonplace for sociologists that testing or “fine-tuning” questionnaires is a complex and multi-stage process, consisting, as a rule, of 3-5 or even more different “pilots”. In particular, not only the questionnaire can be piloted, but also, for example, the sample (i.e., checking the availability of respondents, the feasibility of the chosen procedure for searching them, etc.), the survey procedure (time, place and method of organizing the survey, the duration of filling out the questionnaire ) and a number of other survey parameters. When piloting the questionnaire itself, the subject of piloting can be the questions themselves, the structure and composition of the questionnaire, as well as the research issues. Consideration of the entire complex of these problems, i.e. description various types pilot studies seems important, but is not within the scope of this paragraph. His task will be to describe exclusively certain types of aerobatics associated with the use of in-depth interviews.

We consider the most acceptable method for pilot research to be the method often used by psychologists of having the respondent fill out a test or questionnaire, “thinking out loud.” In other words, the respondent should be asked to familiarize themselves with the finished version of the questionnaire and fill it out, telling the interviewer all the thoughts, associations and difficulties that come to mind. In a well-developed questionnaire, such accompanying thoughts and difficulties will be few. Questions, the logical division of which is completed and which are understandable to the respondent, are usually filled out immediately and do not cause any oral comments. The situation is different with various kinds of “inadequate” questions. The answer to one such question may well be a long interview, which will reveal a complete questionnaire on the issues being studied.

It should be noted that many problems of inadequacy of questions and questionnaires are covered in the domestic literature. In particular, quite often they talk about the limitations associated with the memory of respondents, the narrowness of their language capabilities (due, for example, to a low level of education), the personal or intimate nature of the questions, and a number of other factors. Without denying the importance of these aspects, we want to focus on the main, from our point of view, shortcoming of domestic questionnaires, namely, a kind of “cognitive” difficulty caused by incorrectly asked questions among respondents. By “wrong” questions, we mean, in particular:

– complex questions of large logical volume that do not “fit” into the closing list, even if the latter contains 10-15 or more points;

– questions containing various kinds of logical defects (“double” question, inconsistently formulated question, ambiguous in meaning, etc.);

– questions containing presumptions that contradict the knowledge or beliefs of the respondent;

– questions, knowledge or ideas about which are generally absent in the respondent’s mind;

- questions in which the respondent does not find the typological case to which he himself belongs (for example, if you ask in a questionnaire who is mainly involved in the child, the father or mother, but in reality the child lives with his grandmother, then the respondent, strictly speaking, does not can answer such a question, although in reality he usually answers it somehow)

To illustrate what an inadequate question is and how it works, here is the following scene taken from real sociological life (the director of a livestock farm was interviewed):

“Interviewer (reads the survey question): Have you had to introduce any innovations in the last two months?

Respondent (thinks, then asks): What is innovation?

Interviewer: Well, if you have introduced something new...

Respondent (thinks, then asks): Two weeks ago I threw out two rusty galvanized bathtubs and replaced them with plastic ones. Is this innovation?

Interviewer (thinks, then answers): Yes, perhaps ϶ᴛᴏ innovation.

Respondent (thinks, then asks): And last month I fired two drunks. Is this innovation?

Interviewer (thinks, then answers): No, it's not an innovation.

Respondent (thinks, then asks): I said I replaced two bathtubs. Is it one innovation or two?

Interviewer (thinks, then answers): Apparently, alone.

Respondent: Well, then write that there is only one.

Interviewer: I see. Let's move on to next question... ».

Questionnaire interviews typically reveal several levels of shortcomings. At least three such levels can be distinguished. The first level is the possible inadequacy of the questionnaire to the entire problem being studied or the reality itself being studied.
In this case, a radical replacement of the entire questionnaire is required, as well as consideration of the question of whether the questionnaire survey method is generally applicable to this (refined) problem. An example illustrating the need for such a radical replacement is given in the appendix to this paragraph. The second level is the composition of questions and the logical composition of the questionnaire. In domestic textbooks, when considering the problem of questionnaire composition, they write a lot about the fact that the order of the questions can greatly influence the results of the survey. This is true, but in this case we are talking about something else. When we talk about composition errors, we mean the following. First of all, the questionnaire may contain both “extra” (irrelevant) blocks of questions and, more importantly, missing, but meaningfully necessary (relevant) blocks of questions.

Secondly, as already noted in Chapter Two, questionnaires compiled by domestic sociologists almost always suffer from insufficient logical branching, omitting many typological cases that are widespread in reality. It should be emphasized that the very first few interviews, conducted using an a priori questionnaire, reveal a large number of “missing” questions of both the first and second types.

Finally, the third level is the level of the questions themselves and the closing hints they contain. This level can be described as the “fine” or final refinement of the questionnaire. The list of possible defects in the formulation of questions and closings is, in general, described in the domestic literature, but, despite this, shortcomings of this kind are constantly reproduced in questionnaires compiled by domestic sociologists.

A comparison of the results of questionnaire surveys (both pilot and mass surveys) with the results of in-depth interviews based on these questionnaires demonstrates that the “smoothness” or “ease” of filling out questionnaires by respondents sitting in the hall is often apparent. Practice shows that respondents in the overwhelming majority of cases somehow answer even those questions that contain gross methodological flaws. This effect becomes understandable if we consider that from a psychoenergetic position, it is easier for a respondent to answer a question that raises doubts than to go and clarify the relationship with the persons conducting the survey. Only a free interview, in which the respondent is asked to report all the difficulties he is experiencing and the accompanying thoughts, can reveal how inadequate such a “smoothly” filled out question can be.

As an example, here is an excerpt from a methodological interview conducted at the request of the author by Galina Vokhmentseva. The respondent is a young worker who served in the army and has a secondary education.

“Respondent (reads out the survey question): WHAT IS A GOOD JOB? WHAT SHOULD SHE GIVE PEOPLE?

Interviewer: Is the question clear?

Respondent: Yes, I understand.

Respondent (reads the first closing option):

1. Constantly improve.

After the respondent read the clue, the recorder recorded a 40-second pause. Then the respondent tried three times to start some kind of phrase reflecting his opinion about this formulation, but this phrase did not work out for him. Finally he said, “What does it mean to continually improve?” I don't understand this. This is to improve your qualifications, or what? But then it should have been written that way. And so ϶ᴛᴏ meaningless... "

We conclude this section by considering the issue of sampling in pilot studies. Domestic sources indicate that the sample size should be from 50 to 100 people. In our opinion, there are different types of aerobatics, and the sample size when conducting them should be different. In general, when conducting pilot studies, the principle remains valid, according to which a lesser degree of formalization of the survey should result in a smaller sample size. You can, of course, conduct 100 body interviews using a questionnaire, but it is more advisable to move step by step, carrying out, as already mentioned, 3-5 pilot studies, and after each stage, refining and correcting the tools. It seems that using a questionnaire that has never been piloted, it is enough to conduct a full interview with 5-10 respondents. As practice shows, this number of conversations is more than enough to realize the need for significant processing. The next stages of piloting may require interviewing a larger number of respondents in order to identify various typological cases not taken into account by the questionnaire, which are already relatively rare, but perhaps make up 10-15% of the sample. The degree of formalization of the questionnaire may probably increase with time, but with reflected methodological experience in this issue We don't have it. In order to reduce the labor intensity of the study, not the entire questionnaire can be piloted on a larger sample, but only its individual blocks or questions. Samples for aerobatics should be drawn up according to the quota type, so that the survey takes into account differences in role positions and, if possible, in personality types of respondents.

APPENDIX: COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY USING THE QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD AND THE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW METHOD

Let us give an example of the inadequacy of the questionnaire at the very first of the above levels, i.e. at the level of its complete inconsistency with real reality. The material was published on http://site
We will talk about a description of a methodological experiment set up by life itself, during which the same problem was studied in parallel by two different methods: a questionnaire and an in-depth interview.

The original order for the study was formulated in the late 70s by employees of the USSR Ministry of Coal Industry and was to study the reasons for the very high turnover of line managers at middle management in coal mines. When passing through the administrative authorities (from the customer to the management of the VNIIugol institute, from the management of the institute to the head of the sociological laboratory of the named institute), the essence of the order was significantly distorted. The word “turnover” was replaced by the more familiar word to sociologists, “staff turnover,” and the word “managerial employees” was replaced by the more familiar “engineering and technical workers” (E&T), which includes not only line managers of production, but also a large number of workers , employed in workshops and in plant management as engineers, technicians, economists, standard setters, etc. As a result, the title of the topic began to sound like “Studying the causes of staff turnover of engineering and technical personnel in coal mines.”

The management of the VNIIugol Institute entrusted the development of this topic to its own sociological laboratory, in which the author of this book worked, and at the same time, on the basis of a business agreement, to a group of workers from the Academy of National Economy of the USSR (ANH). As a result of the issuance of parallel tasks, a kind of “competition” arose between ANKh group and the author of this book.

The ANH group followed the traditional questionnaire route and, in a certain sense, did it correctly. Workers in the ϶ᴛᴏth group took as a basis the questionnaires developed by that time to study the causes of worker turnover. These questionnaires were distinguished by certain specifics, which consisted of the following. In principle, to study the reasons for turnover, it would be more correct to interview people leaving the enterprise. At the same time, organizing such a survey is technically difficult, therefore, according to the tradition dating back to the works of E. Antosenkov, Soviet sociologists studied not the reasons for dismissals, but the degree and factors of job dissatisfaction, as well as the so-called potential turnover among people working at the enterprise. Possible disadvantages of this approach will not be discussed here. It is worth saying that it is important for us that the ANKh group took as a basis just such a questionnaire, declaratively aimed at studying the reasons for staff turnover, but actually studying the reasons for dissatisfaction with work.

In order to conduct a survey of engineering and technical workers, the questionnaire adapted for surveying workers required some modification, taking into account the specifics of the work of engineers. In general, the ANKh group coped with this task satisfactorily. In particular, significant differences in the organization of remuneration systems for workers and engineers were taken into account. In general, the questionnaire developed by this group did not contain any crude methodological errors in the sense that it was quite easy to fill out by respondents and did not include questions that would confuse them. It is appropriate to note that the survey was conducted on a large sample, the results were processed on a computer, and the main result of the survey looked like this: the main reasons for the turnover of engineering personnel will be low wages and poor housing. In a certain sense, this result can be considered correct, because the salaries of many technical technical groups, including production managers, in those years were lower than those of workers, and the provision of housing was also objectively unsatisfactory (although it is difficult to say who had it worse and who had a faster turn for housing: workers or engineers. This and a number of other issues related to housing remained outside the scope of consideration) One way or another, the result described above looked correct and even obvious, but in fact it was not. a colossal mistake, fundamentally incorrectly interpreting the processes of turnover and turnover of personnel of the studied contingent of workers.

Let us now move on to a description of that part of the work that was carried out by a group of researchers, which included the author of this book. On the advice of scientific supervisor V. Chesnokova, a series of in-depth interviews were conducted in order to clarify the issues. The first step was a conversation with the customer - a senior employee of the USSR Ministry of Coal Industry. By the way, this conversation helped clarify the essence of the order and the motives for its nomination. It is pertinent to note that the interviewee explained that the ministry is concerned about the high turnover and difficulties in staffing production managers in coal mines. As proof, he showed computer-printed data sheets, which actually showed an increase in the turnover of managers over recent years. Regarding the reasons for this phenomenon, the customer found it difficult to say anything and said that this is exactly what is extremely important to find out during the examination. Do not forget that an important result of the conversation was the clarification that the customer was interested in the problems of turnover of only production managers, and not all engineers.

After the conversation with the customer, several dozen interviews were conducted with coal mine managers, mainly directors and chief engineers. Some of the interviews collected then were later published in the collection “Production Interviews, vol. 2". The very first conversations with mine managers struck me with the complexity, tension of the production situation and the abundance of problems that were not only described, but even posed by domestic sociologists. Further, the interviews clarified the essence of the order made by the ministry. This, of course, was not about staff turnover. Some turnover, that is, voluntary dismissals, took place only in the lower official group of managers (mining foremen), but this did not really worry the respondents. At the same time, the personnel situation at the next job level, namely the position of section chiefs, which is similar to the position of shop manager in other industries, was considered extremely acute by almost all respondents. In this case, we were not talking about staff turnover, since voluntary dismissals were uncharacteristic for this job group and represented very rare and atypical cases. The high turnover rates reflected in ministerial figures were generated by the so-called administrative turnover, i.e., the removal of managers from office for failure to fulfill the plan, safety violations identified by inspections, and for various other reasons. By the way, this turnover was indeed very high; in some mines it reached 40 percent or more per year.

The information obtained from the in-depth interviews revealed a fundamental flaw in the parallel questionnaire survey. This survey, we remind you, was focused on studying the reasons for the turnover of engineering and technical personnel. The main flaw of this study was that it studied the causes of a phenomenon that does not actually exist. In-depth interviews immediately revealed that instead of turnover, there is administrative turnover, and this is a fundamentally different phenomenon, generated by completely different factors and reflecting a completely different problem.

The new phenomenon of administrative turnover discovered during the study required clarification of the reasons for its occurrence and functional role. Understanding of these issues did not come immediately. The first signal that caught our attention was the fact that a small number of interviewed managers (about 10-15%), unlike the majority of their colleagues, characterized the production and personnel situation at their mines as relatively calm. This served as the basis for putting forward a hypothesis about the existence of a connection between the degree of intensity of the plan and the turnover of management personnel. Further research, as well as the study of literature (mainly memoirs of leaders and ministerial workers of the Soviet era) made it possible to formulate the following concept.

In a planned economy there is one problem that is difficult to solve. If the production unit has not fulfilled the plan, higher management bodies have a question: what happened? objective reasons due to lack of resources or due to poor management? It is clear that in the first case it is extremely important to allocate additional resources, and in the second - to change the manager. Over the 70 years of Soviet power, all attempts to learn how to solve this issue objectively, on the basis of accounting for production capacities and technical industrial and financial plans drawn up on their basis, ended in failure. Instead, administrative economics invented a different, in its own way effective, albeit cynical, mechanism. Its essence lies in the fact that production is annually given increasing planned targets using the “based on what has been achieved” method. The issuance of such an assignment is supported by the threat of sanctions against enterprise managers in case of failure to fulfill it. In Stalin's times, such a threat could have been a camp or execution. In subsequent decades, the sanctions were softened, and the main one was the threat of administrative removal from office.

In dynamics, the mechanism operated as follows. The production capacity of the enterprise will not be a constant value; it will grow as a result capital investments and fall due to equipment wear. The most typical graph of the dynamics of a plant's production capacity is an arc with ascending and descending branches. If the plant is relatively new or has recently undergone reconstruction, it usually has certain real reserves for increasing their production capacity due to more complete utilization of equipment, connection of new unit capacities, etc. Gradually, these reserves are exhausted, and the curve reflecting the dynamics of capacity ascending turns into horizontal. Then the equipment begins to wear out and, if it is not updated in time, the capacity curve will go down.

At the stage of growth of production capacity, the practice of increasing plans “from what has been achieved”, in general, justifies itself, in part even being a stimulator of production growth. Problems begin to arise at the “horizontal” stage, when the main reserves for increasing capacity have been exhausted, but planned requirements continue to grow. Let us note that, nevertheless, at this stage the discrepancy between the dynamics of capacity and the dynamics of requirements is not yet so great, and over the course of some time (several years) the management of the enterprise can get out of the situation by hook or by crook. Finally, when equipment enters the wear-out stage, the capacity and planned demand curves diverge sharply, forming “scissors.” At this moment, higher-level planning authorities begin a real “beating” of the management staff of enterprises. There is, so to speak, a “test for lice”: the question is clarified whether additional resources are really needed to further increase production or whether it is possible to get by with increasing administrative pressure on management, threats, and a change of managers. And only after two or three directors are replaced, and production continues to work worse and worse, the fact that the enterprise’s capabilities have been exhausted is considered proven. At this moment the cycle begins again. A new (third or fourth) director is appointed to the enterprise, and they try to find a truly outstanding manager. It is important to note that at the same time the company is allocated additional capital investments, increasing the salary fund and creating other preferential conditions, thanks to which new director can lead an enterprise out of crisis. After a certain time (depending on the volume of resource injection, the period can range from 5 to 15 years), production will again enter a state of crisis, and again the director and lower-level managers will have to endure humiliating and unfair accusations of “inability” to fulfill the state task (in Stalin years, instead of “inability”, the words “sabotage” and “sabotage” appeared)

Of course, the above describes only the most general scheme, which in reality could vary widely. In particular, it would be very interesting to study the counter-strategies that leaders used to survive. Such mechanisms are partially described in the article by S. Pavlenko “Informal management interactions.” At the same time, our scheme should not be considered purely conventional, because in the history of the Soviet economy it was applied literally many times. In particular, during Stalin's time, the scenario described above was realized in the ferrous metallurgy, and possibly in other branches of heavy industry. From 1930 to 1935 production capacity, plans and production volumes in the iron and steel industry grew rapidly under the influence of large-scale purchases of equipment in the West. Then purchases were stopped, the equipment began to age, but plans continued to increase at the previously achieved pace. The increase in planning pressure forced enterprise directors to violate technology, which accelerated the deterioration of capacity. As a result, in 1938 there was a major underfulfillment of the plan, after which about half of all directors, chief engineers and lower-level production managers were replaced in the industry. As far as can be understood from the cited source, as well as from A. Beck’s book “New Assignment,” most of them were arrested. According to a similar scenario, the arrests of collective farm chairmen were carried out in the late 40s and early 50s during the period of their “unprecedented turnover.”

In subsequent years (Stalin and post-Stalin), this scenario was implemented repeatedly in various industries. We do not have systematic data on the entire national economy, but there is no doubt that at the end of the 70s, the coal industry was in a state of production and personnel crisis, capital investments in which were “cut off” by N. Khrushchev, and the USSR Council of Ministers continued to increase production plans.

The last large-scale attempt to increase production volumes by increasing administrative pressure on factories was made by Yu. Andropov. It is worth noting that he achieved an increase in the turnover of managers by approximately 30%, but real production volumes did not increase as a result, and in general the campaign he conducted had a rather negative impact on National economy, giving rise to a kind of “unscheduled emergency” with all the consequences characteristic of emergency situations. Yu. Andropov did not have the opportunity to make large resource injections into the economy, and the country’s leadership simply did not have any other levers of influence within the administrative system.

It should be noted that the relationship described above between the degree of intensity of production plans and the turnover of managers is also found in the intra-shop structure of factories, since the planned workload of shops, as it turned out as a result of the survey, is extremely uneven. At every enterprise there are so-called difficult workshops that constantly fail to fulfill plans. According to our measurements, the turnover of managers in such workshops is 2-3 times higher than the turnover of managers in other workshops of the factories.

Although the changing political and economic situation in the country has deprived the results described above of practical significance, their scientific significance, from our point of view, remains, since similar effects can arise (and, apparently, arise) in any large administrative systems, including, for example, large corporations. It seems that in the 70s, Russian sociology could have made many interesting discoveries if it had not put on the blinders of formalized questionnaires.

The methodological significance of the above example essentially lies in the fact that the in-depth interview used at the initial stage of the study revealed the need to radically change the research problems, bringing them closer to reality. The material was published on http://site

Social scientists without experience with in-depth interviews often express concerns that the lack of quantitative data makes research findings unreliable or, at best, unsubstantiated. This is incorrect for a number of reasons, in particular because if the researcher has a qualitative concept, operationalizing its main variables is traditionally not difficult. In particular, in the questionnaires developed by the author there were questions about the number of reprimands received over the last year, about the length of service in the position held, about the actual length of the working day, etc. At the same time, and it is also important to note that many concepts include such variables ᴏᴛᴏᴩwhich can be objectively measured, but not by questionnaire. A frequent disadvantage of domestic questionnaires is that with their help they are trying to obtain certain quantitative data, the correctness and reliability of which can only be ensured by carrying out statistical measurements.

Ministry of Higher Education

Penza State University

Department: Communication Management

Course work

discipline: Research of social, economic and political processes

on the topic: "In-depth interview as a method of qualitative sociological survey, its advantages and disadvantages"

Completed by: student gr.05ZIZH61

Tyurina E.G.

Checked by: Manannikova Yu.V.

Penza, 2010

Introduction

1.2 Main characteristics of the in-depth interview method

2. Preparation of an in-depth interview

2.1 General preparation interview

2.2 Specific interview preparation

2.3 Psychological preparation interview

3. Conducting an in-depth interview

3.1 Structure of the interview situation

3.2 Interview questions

3.3 How to conduct an in-depth interview

3.4 Recording the interview

4. Scenario of in-depth interviews with employees of real estate agencies in the city of Penza

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Interview refers to survey methods of sociological research. The essential characteristic of this method is targeted, specified socio-psychological communication between the interviewer and the respondent.

The interview method is very popular today in sociological practice. This is explained, first of all, by its versatility: it can be used to obtain information about the past, present and future of the people being studied, as well as subjective and behavioral information. Of course, you can study people’s behavior by purposefully observing them, i.e. using the observation method. However, when observing, it is very difficult to “penetrate” the subjective world of a person, the world of his assessments, plans, motives for certain actions, stereotypes. Only survey methods, and above all interviews, give the researcher such a chance.

In sociological practice, a wide variety of interviews are used, which are “fitted” by researchers into dozens of classifications constructed on a variety of grounds. One of the types of interviews that will be discussed in this test work is an in-depth interview.

In this test we will look at:

1. In-depth interview as a method of qualitative sociological survey, its advantages and disadvantages;

2. The procedure for preparing and conducting an in-depth interview;

3. Example of questions for conducting in-depth interviews in real estate agencies in Penza.

1. In-depth interview as a qualitative survey method

1.1 What is the method

In-depth interviews as a method of conducting sociological research do not have a very long history, but in recent years it has become very popular in the market.

The method involves an individual interview with a person. An in-depth interview is a personal, unstructured conversation, a free and direct interview, during which the moderator (interviewer) finds out the opinions, habits of the respondent, his beliefs and inclinations. In-depth interviews are good when you need to explore a person's hidden associations, emotions and inclinations. This method allows you to understand the characteristics of perception and memorization, which cannot be achieved with a focus group (a focus group is more superficial, the opinions of participants can influence each other). Meanwhile, it is the deep processes occurring in consciousness that are very important.

In addition, the in-depth interview method is necessary in the following cases:

· when it is necessary to discuss confidential, personal, intimate or related to social norms questions that the respondent will not honestly answer during a group interview;

· when you need to find out the motives of a person’s behavior when making large purchases, such as a car or a house;

· when it is necessary to interview a small and hard-to-reach group of people (for example, representatives of the business elite);

· in cases where it is necessary to interview professionals or specialists in any field;

· when you need to hear the opinions of competitors (in the presence of a group of other people, such a respondent will be constrained and not frank).

The interview can take the form of a structured survey or in the form of a more or less free conversation, similar to a conversation with a psychologist.

1.2 Main characteristics of the in-depth interview method.

survey sociological interview employee real estate

In-depth interviews as a method of collecting qualitative information have its advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:

1. The opportunity to speak freely for respondents who are overly sensitive to the comments of others or who are not inclined to publicly discuss certain issues.

2. Control of the completeness of the information received.

3. Possibility of getting more detailed information about the opinions, motives, and ideas of the respondent, since the researcher concentrates on one person.

4. Formation of a more serious attitude of the respondent to the survey as a result of an individual interview.

5. Possibility of observing the respondent’s nonverbal reactions.

6. The ability to adjust the course of the study by the interviewer if necessary.

7. The ability to adapt the interview technique to the conditions of a specific situation.

Flaws:

1. The complexity of training a highly qualified interviewer.

2. The risk of a decrease in the quality and depth of the information received under the influence of the interviewer.

3. High costs time.

4. High financial costs.

5. The complexity of the information collection procedure (only 4-5 interviews per day).

6. The complexity of the information processing procedure.

7. Often limited use of demonstration material in specific interview conditions.

The main purpose of an in-depth interview is to help the researcher clarify the motives of consumer behavior, understand some aspects of their lifestyle, obtain information about the specific features of using certain products, and the reasons for a certain reaction to marketing incentives.

1.3 Two forms of in-depth interviews

There are two forms of in-depth interviews: formalized and informal.

In-depth interviews, which are conducted according to a pre-drawn plan (scenario), are called formalized. If during the conversation the moderator encounters issues that are not within the scope of interests this study, then he doesn't stop at them. In general, in such an interview a list of main and secondary topics is agreed upon in advance. A specific list and sequence of questions is clearly stated.

The main purpose of a formalized interview is to obtain the same type of information from each respondent. Such interviews can be conducted with different respondents or, in certain situations, repeated many times with the same ones to study the dynamics of change quality characteristics respondents.

In free, informal interviews, the topic of the conversation and a set of questions that need to be clarified can be asked, but the nature of the conversation can proceed in a free form, without strictly following a pre-prepared script. The moderator has the right to be distracted by other topics if during the discussion he sees such a need. In such interviews, it is not necessary to compare questions and answers asked by different respondents. The individual respondent does not act as a statistical unit of the survey. The content of the interview may even change gradually from one interview to subsequent ones. As the interviews progress, researchers can gradually refine the issue being discussed. In such conditions, the use of a pre-prepared and clearly structured questionnaire becomes a hindrance to the study. Therefore, in an informal interview, sometimes there may not be a questionnaire as such. Informal interviews can be conducted as preparation for a formalized one, and then they belong to the group of preparatory ones. All new problems for the company, new products, new types of services can go through this stage of research. In preparatory in-depth interviews, types of reactions of respondents, forms of reactions to questions are identified, significant problems are identified, and a terminological dictionary of communication is established. Next, at the stage of an independent informal interview, a study of the object that interests the company takes place. For example, with the help of such forms of organization it is possible to conduct research on the shadow economy in Russia. The methods of informal interviews are much more varied than formal ones. The flexibility of the conversation, the ability in certain situations to clarify the positions and opinions of respondents allows us to gain a deep understanding existing problems. At the same time, the professionalism of the moderator comes to the fore.

1.4 Duration of interview

When conducting in-depth interviews, organizers pay very important attention to conversation time. Organizing an in-depth interview is especially difficult because... such a meeting usually requires one and a half to two hours. Very compelling reasons are needed for a stranger, who often introduces himself over the phone, to agree to such a long meeting, from which one can expect any kind of boredom, nonsense, psychological discomfort, etc. In practice, reasonable wishes are used to ensure that the interview does not change the respondent’s traditional work or leisure schedule. It is advisable to choose a time when the respondent is not pressured by the need to perform any important or urgent matters. The beauty of a qualitative interview is its depth and flexibility. It is often difficult to achieve a goal within one meeting. Of course, you can continue the interview until the topic is exhausted, but this usually takes a lot of time. For example, such an interview can take you up to eight hours. However, with such long and intense communication, the ability to clearly track the thread of the conversation, catch missed nuances and eliminate them with the help of clarifying questions is lost. Later, when analyzing the interview text, it will become clear that you missed many opportunities to focus the conversation on important details. Unfortunately, none of the researchers can name the optimal time. The usual duration of an in-depth interview is from 40 minutes to two hours. In some cases, the interview can last up to four hours. On the one hand, this is enough to organize a meaningful conversation and achieve the goal, and on the other hand, the average person can normally withstand intensive communication within such a time. however, it is often difficult to achieve the main purpose of the interview within this period of time without loss of quality. The solution may be a repeat interview.

Don't lose it. Subscribe and receive a link to the article in your email.

Each of us has heard the word “interview” from time to time and, in fact, it does not represent any secret, because almost everyone knows that an interview is a type of conversation between two or more people, during which the interviewer (the person conducting the interview) asks questions to interlocutors (respondents) in order to obtain answers.

But not everyone knows that there is a special type of interview that allows you to find out information that cannot be obtained through a regular interview. This kind of interview is called in-depth. Just like a regular interview, it is used as a research method in a whole range of humanities and social sciences, such as marketing, public relations, communication, sociology, and others, as well as in many areas of human activity, for example, in management personnel, journalism, etc.

In this article we will talk about the topic of in-depth interviews and talk about the advantages it has as a research method.

Benefits of in-depth interviews

Let us immediately make a small clarification that further we will point out the specific features of an in-depth interview and consider each of them in more detail.

Obtaining in-depth information from the respondent

With the help of an in-depth interview, it becomes possible for the interviewer to establish a more trusting relationship with his respondent, which creates the prospect of obtaining unique information that is almost impossible to obtain using other methods. In addition, in-depth interviews, as opposed to focus groups (groups of respondents consisting of 8-10 people), are always conducted one on one, which means that it is possible to exclude the influence of the opinions of other people on the opinion of a particular respondent.

Using an in-depth interview, you can determine the needs and motives that underlie the behavior of clients and buyers, obtain data on consumer strategies and the principles on which their choice of goods and services is based, and the mechanisms that shape decision-making officials, methods of overcoming all kinds of problems by employees of organizations, their expectations, values, etc.

Application of projective methods

Projective methods, for example, associations, color and drawing tests and others like them, allow you to learn much more about the respondent’s position on a particular issue, as well as about his personal characteristics. And any such information can be very useful when analyzing materials obtained during an interview.

In addition to the above, using projective methods, it is possible to obtain from the respondent such data that is difficult to express using linguistic means. For example, a person cannot verbally describe the design of a product that is acceptable to him, but successfully depicts it in a drawing. Projective methods also help to study the associations that people have about names, logos, brands, etc.

Thanks to projective methods, an element of play is included in the interview, which helps reduce the emotional stress of the person involved in the interview process and allows one to obtain, as already mentioned, information of a more in-depth nature. But, be that as it may, the use of projective methods in marketing research often requires the involvement of psychologists in the process who can professionally interpret the information received.

Application of visual materials

During the in-depth interview, the interviewer has the opportunity to use all kinds of visual materials, such as packaging, display cases, photographs, posters, posters, videos, etc. In most cases, the use of such materials helps stimulate the respondent to reason, more fully answer questions and express his opinion as subjectively as possible.

Studying the opinions of special categories of respondents

In-depth interviews can be used to study the consumption of special types of goods and services, such as, for example, pet supplies, pharmaceuticals, plastic surgery, cosmetology and others. This method is also relevant in situations where it is necessary to study the opinions of hard-to-reach categories of people, for example, exclusively consumers of luxury goods, and in situations where the respondent may experience discomfort during group discussion goods of a specific group (contraception, drugs affecting potency, etc.).

Now it’s worth raising the question, so to speak, of the disadvantages of the method we are considering.

Limitations of in-depth interviews as a research method

Along with everyone positive characteristics In-depth interview, there are certain limitations for this research method.

The personality of the interviewer influences the nature of the data obtained

Given various subjective factors, the personality of the interviewer can influence how the respondent answers. In other words, the respondent can choose a certain behavior strategy for himself and stick to it during the interview, without being who he really is at that time.

During an in-depth interview, the researcher must be as attentive and tactful as possible: he must encourage a confidential conversation, inspire respect and trust in the interlocutor, and set him up for natural behavior. He also should not be overly self-confident or express his personal judgments towards the respondent himself, because all this can have an impact on the quality of the information received.

It is impossible to study the opinions of a large number of respondents

Differing from a conventional formal interview, an in-depth interview focuses on the study of motivational and consumer characteristics one person or a very small group of people, for example, a family. Thus, the study is conducted at the micro level.

A prerequisite for an in-depth interview is not a sampling technique, which means that the results obtained in its process cannot be unambiguously projected onto a larger group of people with whom an in-depth interview was not conducted. In addition, the information that was obtained through an in-depth interview cannot be analyzed in complex mathematical ways, as, for example, during a survey or questionnaire. An in-depth interview can only show a researcher a trend, not a statistic.

Duration of the study

If we compare in-depth interviews with focus groups, then conducting them requires significantly more time, even with the same number of respondents. But here we must remember that the quality of the information obtained during an in-depth interview is much higher, because the respondent’s answers are in no way influenced by the opinions or statements of other people.

Difficulties in analyzing the information received

Despite the fact that a whole cycle of in-depth interviews can be conducted according to the same scheme, in which identically formulated questions are asked, in the process of analyzing the information received, difficulties may arise that are associated with the comparability of data and the identification of specific trends. This is mainly due to the fact that each individual case of conducting an in-depth interview is unique in its own way, and the data obtained is always subjective.

These are the main characteristics and limitations of in-depth interviews. But, summing up this material, one cannot fail to mention the technology of its implementation.

In-depth interview technology

Speaking about the technology of conducting in-depth interviews, we will indicate only its key points.

Preparing the interview structure

Before starting an in-depth interview, the researcher must prepare an interview plan to guide the process. The plan, in turn, should only be a list of questions that will be asked to the respondent, which distinguishes this method from a regular survey.

Selection of respondents and conducting in-depth interviews

After the interview plan is drawn up, respondents are selected and the in-depth interview itself is conducted. Its duration can vary - from 30 minutes to 2-3 hours, which depends on the complexity of the interview topic, the number of questions and the depth of their study.

Basically, an in-depth interview is carried out in a specially designed room, characterized by a neutral environment, as well as good sound insulation - this is done in order to exclude any external interference.

In order to facilitate subsequent decoding and analysis of the information received, as well as to avoid data loss, the in-depth interview should be recorded on audio or video media.

Processing and analysis of results

Upon completion of the in-depth interview, its recording is processed so that the researcher has access to the full text of the conversation. Based on this text and the impressions of the interviewer, a necessary analysis and a report is compiled.

In-depth interviews as a research method are very flexible. For this reason, in practice it can be used both as an independent method and in combination with qualitative methods(desk research, focus groups) and quantitative methods (any type of survey).