The interview method of data collection

1. Meaning

An interview is a purposeful conversation in which the researcher obtains information from a respondent by asking questions face to face, by telephone or online. It is a verbal and social exchange: the answers depend on the relationship between the two parties as well as on the questions. P.V. Young described it as a systematic method by which one person enters more or less imaginatively into the inner life of another who is generally a comparative stranger. It is the basic tool of qualitative legal research and a common supplement to survey work.

2. Kinds

• Structured (standardised): predetermined questions in fixed order, often with a schedule. Comparable answers; little flexibility.
• Unstructured (non-directive): the interviewer has topics, not fixed questions, and follows the respondent’s lead. Rich data; hard to compare.
• Semi-structured: a guide of core questions with freedom to probe. The usual choice in legal research.
• Focused interview: developed by Robert Merton and colleagues (The Focused Interview, 1956), it concentrates on a particular experience the respondent has had — a trial, an arrest, a mediation — and its effect on him.
• Depth interview: long, repeated sessions to explore motives and feelings; used in studies of victims or of professional culture.
• Group interview and focus group: a moderator leads a discussion among six to ten people. Shows how views form in interaction; quieter members may be silenced.
• Telephone and online interviews: cheaper and wider in reach; rapport and observation are weaker.
• Elite interviews: with judges, senior officials, legislators. Need careful preparation; the respondent often controls the agenda.

3. Conducting an interview

1. Preparation. Study the subject and the respondent; prepare an interview guide; pilot it; obtain permissions (for prisons, courts, police stations); fix an appointment.
2. Informed consent. Explain the purpose, how the information will be used, whether it will be recorded, and the respondent’s right to refuse or withdraw.
3. Rapport. Begin with easy, neutral questions. Be courteous, patient and non-judgmental.
4. Questioning. Ask clearly, one question at a time; avoid leading questions; move from general to specific.
5. Probing. Follow up incomplete or vague answers with neutral prompts (“Could you tell me more?”, a pause, repeating the answer back).
6. Recording. Audio recording with consent, or careful notes written up the same day. Note the setting and non-verbal behaviour.
7. Closing. Thank the respondent; ask whether there is anything to add; keep the promise of confidentiality.
8. Transcription and analysis. Transcribe, code by themes, and check interpretations against the whole transcript.

A sample interview guide for a semi-structured interview with legal aid lawyers on bail practice: (1) How long have you worked on the panel, and in which courts? (2) Describe the last bail application you handled for an undertrial. (3) What, in your experience, decides whether bail is granted at the first hearing? (4) Have you met cases where the accused was eligible for release but no application had been made? Why did that happen? (5) What would you change? Each core question is followed by probes as the answers suggest.

4. Merits

• Depth: reasons, motives and experiences can be explored.
• Flexibility: questions can be explained, rephrased and followed up.
• Reaches the illiterate, children and others who cannot fill a form.
• High response rate once an appointment is made.
• Observation of manner and setting supplements what is said.
• Accuracy can be checked by cross-questioning within the interview.

5. Limits and the problem of bias

• Cost and time; samples are therefore small.
• Interviewer bias: the interviewer’s expectations, appearance, gender, caste or status may shape the answers, and his own views may colour the recording.
• Respondent bias: answers given to please, to appear respectable (social desirability), or out of fear — a prisoner interviewed in the presence of a jail official will not speak freely.
• Memory: recollection of past events is unreliable.
• Data are hard to quantify and to compare.
• The skill of the interviewer decides the quality of the data.

Reducing bias: train interviewers; use a guide; record verbatim; interview in private; match interviewers to respondents where sensitive (women interviewing women survivors); check answers against records; and keep reflexive notes on one’s own influence.

6. Interviews in legal settings

Access to prisoners. In Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, 1981 INSC 191, (1982) 1 SCC 1, a journalist sought to interview two prisoners under sentence of death. The Supreme Court held that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) does not carry an absolute right to interview a prisoner, but directed that the interview be allowed where the prisoner was willing, subject to the jail authorities’ conditions. The lesson for researchers is twofold: access to prisoners depends on permission and on the prisoner’s consent, and consent must be real.

Judges. Interviewing sitting judges raises questions of propriety; judges will not discuss pending matters and may speak only on condition of anonymity. Research on judicial behaviour therefore often combines interviews with retired judges and analysis of judgments.

Victims and children. Interviewing survivors of sexual offences or children requires special care to avoid re-traumatisation, and the identity of victims is protected by law; see the note on research ethics.

How this is examined

For a short note: definition, four kinds, the steps of conducting an interview in brief, three merits and three limits. For an essay, add interviewer bias and its control, and the legal settings in section 6 with Prabha Dutt.