CC-3:

QUALITATIVE
Methods of
RESEARCH Data
METHODS IN Generation:
PSYCHOLOGY Interview
Mitrava Jana
 INTERVIEW

It is an in-depth form of data collection technique that has been defined as a ‘conversation with a
purpose’ (Burgess, 1984). In layman terms, it is a face-to-face conversation between equals. The technique
involves respect between two individuals, the interviewee and the interviewer. Interviews are characterised
by the democratisation of opinion: respondents are considered by the interviewer as vessels of knowledge
in their own right. Gubrium and Holstein (2002) argue that modern research interview is founded on three
basic premises

1. Democratization of opinions: 1st, the interview format assumes that human beings share a common
experience, which any random member of the society can articulate when asked to do so. Gubrium and
Holstein (2002) refer to this as “the democratization of opinions.’ According to this perspective, social
scientists use random respondents for their research because they assume every person’s opinion of the world
is valid and that the sum of these views paints a reasonably complete picture of social reality.
2. Researcher-respondent duality: The second assumption of conventional interviews is the division
between the two formalized roles of the researcher and the respondent. These roles and the expectations
associated with them roughly correspond to a leader-follower relationship. The interviewer is the leader; he or
she asks questions and in doing so, decides the topic, the pace, and the relevance of what will be discussed. The
respondent’s or the interviewee’s primary responsibility is to provide coherent, presumably truthful, answers
when prompted to do so. The rhythmic give-and-take of this exchange is something that most of us are
familiar with and take for granted. However, the interviewer-interviewee etiquette is a cultural convention
that may be disobeyed in some situations.
3. Respondents as vessels of knowledge: The 3rd premise of the interview format is that the respondent is
viewed as a ‘vessel of answers’ (Gubrium and Holstein, 2002) or a fountain of knowledge, that could be turned
on or off the right questions. This suggests that the participants’ involvement in the interview is limited to only
answering questions and that researcher’s primary job is to extract answers.

As a whole, these assumptions regarding democratization of opinions, formalized roles and respondents as
vessels of answers help shape the interview process and its practice by most researchers today.

The process of interview lays emphasis upon not just what is being said but also the gestures, glances,
facial expressions, pauses, voice inflections, halting statements and other nonverbal behaviours that
also communicate a response of the individual and may complement or contradict the answer conveyed
verbally by the respondent. This is another very important advantage of interview method. The total
personality of the interviewee is accessible to interviewer along with their answers, which provides a rich
and valuable source of information about the individual and the phenomena being studied. The interview
method requires the researcher/interviewer to receive adequate training so that they master the necessary
skills involved in effectively generating data.

The interview is often used in the clinical set-up and is termed as consultation/ medical/ clinical interview.
It remains the indispensable unit of medical practice. It has been described as “a conversation with a purpose”
(Bingham and Moore, 1924) and is the most commonly used, the oldest and most versatile procedure in
psychological assessment. It consists of a face-to-face conversation between the participant and the examiner.
Its success depends on how well clinicians and clients communicate with each other (Simpson et al., 1991). It
has also been demonstrated that clinical outcomes and competence in the skills of good communication are
linked (Davis and Fallowfield, 1991).

Interview adds language to observation. The information obtained during interview is private. Interview
requires the skill of the clinician to obtain information. It gathers information as current and past behavior,
attitudes and emotions, as well as a detailed history of the individual’s life in general and of the presenting
problem. In addition, most clinicians gather at least some information on the client’s current and past
interpersonal and social history, including family make-up and on the individual’s upbringing. Information on
sexual development, religious attitudes (current and past), relevant cultural concerns and educational history
are also routinely collected.

Purposes of the interview: The purposes of the interview in the wider context of life are many and varied,
for example:
 to evaluate or assess a person in some respect
 to select or promote an employee
 to effect therapeutic change, as in the psychiatric interview
 to test or develop hypotheses
 to gather data, as in surveys or experimental situations
 to sample respondents’ opinions, as in doorstep interviews.

Othmer and Othmer described psychiatric interviews as taking place in four dimensions:

a. Establishing rapport,
b. Assessing client’s mental status
c. Using specific techniques
d. Diagnosing.

 The interview process progresses in five different stages as:

i) Warm-up and screening of the problem: This is the initial stage of the interview, aimed at
establishing rapport and making the interviewee feel comfortable and secure.

 The interviewer introduces themselves, explains the purpose of the interview, and assures
confidentiality.
 Simple, non-threatening questions are asked (e.g., age, occupation, reason for visit).
 The client is encouraged to talk freely about their presenting problem.
 The interviewer observes verbal and non-verbal behaviour such as tone of voice, eye contact, posture,
and emotional state.

Purpose:
To reduce anxiety, build trust, and get a general idea of the problem so that the interview can proceed
smoothly.
ii) Follow-up of preliminary impressions: In this stage, the interviewer explores the initial impressions
formed during the warm-up phase.

 Ambiguous or unclear points raised earlier are clarified.

 The interviewer asks probing and focused questions related to the client’s complaints.
 Contradictions or inconsistencies in the client’s statements are examined.
 Hypotheses about the nature of the problem begin to form.

Purpose:
To verify or modify early assumptions and gain a clearer understanding of the client’s difficulties.

iii) History and data-base: This is the core information-gathering stage of the interview.

 Detailed information is collected about:

o Personal history (family, education, occupation)
o Developmental history
o Medical and psychiatric history
o Social and interpersonal relationships
o Previous treatments or interventions
 Standardized questions or checklists may be used.
 Both current functioning and past experiences are explored.

Purpose:
To build a comprehensive psychological profile and create a reliable data base for assessment and
diagnosis.

iv) Diagnosis and feedback: Based on the collected information, the interviewer arrives at a tentative or
final diagnosis.

 Symptoms are organized and interpreted using psychological theories or diagnostic systems.
 The interviewer shares feedback with the client in a sensitive and understandable manner.
 Strengths, weaknesses, and problem areas are discussed.
 Client misconceptions may be corrected.

Purpose:
To help the client understand the nature of their problem and increase insight, which is essential for
cooperation in treatment.

v) Prognosis and treatment contrast: This is the planning and decision-making stage of the interview.

 The likely outcome (prognosis) of the problem is discussed.

 Treatment options (e.g., psychotherapy, counseling, medication, behavioral intervention) are explained.
 Goals, duration, frequency, and responsibilities of both client and therapist are clarified.
 A treatment contract or mutual agreement is formed.
 Purpose:
To set realistic expectations and ensure commitment to treatment, promoting better therapeutic outcomes.

Assessment interviews can be thought of as having four major functions: administration, treatment,
research, and prevention (Wiens & Matarazzo, 1983). Sometimes, psychologists’ interviews are for purposes of
fulfilling certain agency requirements, such as determining eligibility for services. The treatment function of
an interview might involve assigning differential diagnoses. Psychiatric interviews have two major technical
goals:
a. Recognition of the psychological determinants of behavior, and
b. Symptom classification

There are different types of interview as follows:

1. Unstructured, semi-structured and structured interview

Unstructured Interview/ Open-ended/ Structured Interview

Non-directive Interview
The approach is not systematic and gives
subjects the chance to describe in their own
way. Unstructured interviews are spontaneous
in nature and usually do not have a Is systematic, involves standardized
standardised format of pre-chosen questions. questions to be asked in more or less the same
The interviewer may start with a set of warm- order.
up questions to ease the interviewee’s anxiety
and then move on to other open-ended
questions as the situation arises.
Is very flexible. The order of questions or the Not flexible. The interviewer has a prepared
mode of recording is usually decided on the set of close- ended questions in the form of an
spot. The interviewer modifies their questions interview schedule of a standardised format
to suit the interviewee’s specific which are read out exactly as worded.
experiences.
Often used when interviewers have a clear
This type of interview is particularly useful idea of what kind of information they used and
when the research question is exploratory and cannot waste too much amount of time –
descriptive data is being sought. Intake structure present. These are used often in
interviews are usually unstructured owing to large-sample surveys, but are not typically
the aim to put the client at ease, in an effort to used by qualitative researchers who are more
promote trust and candor – lack of structure. concerned with an evocative communication of
people’s life experiences, activities, emotions,
and identities (Hugh-Jones, 2010).
Demerits: Merits:
o May reduce reliability and validity of the
interview (Fisher et al, 1967). o Structured interviews are easy to
o There is also a risk of low internal replicate as a fixed set of closed questions are
validity as there is a chance of the interviewer used, which are easy to quantify – this means it
being derailed by tangents and related side is easy to test for reliability. High reliability and
questions and veering off track from the validity (Ventura et al, 1998),e.g. The
original research question. However, clinicians Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID)
usually do more than one interview with a (First et al, 1995); The Diagnostic Interview
given client and hence a self-corrective process Schedule for Children (DISC) (Bellak and
is probably at work. Hersen, 1998)

o It takes a trained and skilled interviewer o Structured interviews are fairly quick to
to conduct an unstructured and often, training conduct which means that many interviews
interviewers is expensive, and not as cheap can take place within a short amount of time.
as collecting data via questionnaires. Skills This means a large sample can be obtained
needed in an interviewer include the ability to resulting in the findings being representative
establish rapport and knowing when to probe. and having the ability to be generalized to a
large population.
o It can be time-consuming to conduct an
unstructured interview and analyse the o Helps in diagnosing personality disorders
qualitative data (using methods such as and more specific disorders (eg. Anxiety
thematic analysis). Disorders)
o Widely used by behavioural clinicians
o Techniques such as suggestive (Pope, 1981)
questioning, social influence, reinforcement
and removal of the child from familiar
surroundings may elicit false allegations by
children and adults (Wood et al, 1998)
Merits: Demerits:

o Unstructured interviews are more o Structured interviews are not flexible.

flexible as questions can be adapted and This means new questions cannot be asked
changed depending on the respondents’ impromptu (i.e. during the interview) as an
answers. The interview can deviate from the interview schedule must be followed.
interview schedule.
o The answers from structured
o Unstructured interviews generate rich interviews lack detail as only closed questions
qualitative data through the use of open- are asked which generates quantitative data.
ended questions. This allows the respondent This means a researcher won't know why a
to talk in some depth, choosing their own person behaves in a certain way.
words. This helps the researcher develop a
real sense of a person’s understanding of a o Need for an experienced clinician
situation. Expensive
o Is impossible to specify in advance all the
o Interviewees may be less likely to questions that should be asked in a diagnostic
provide socially desirable responses or interview
 biased responses since the questions are open-
ended.

o Preferred by psychodynamic and

humanistic clinicians (Pope, 1983).
o Helps in the establishment of rapport for
the interview session.

According to Fontana and Frey (2000), the fundamentals of structured interviewing include asking the
same questions with no variations, pre-established response categories and strict control of the interview
protocol using a script. Generally structured interviewers are instructed to follow these rules:

a. Read the questions exactly as written.

b. If a respondent does not answer a question fully, use non-directive follow-up probes to elicit a better
answer. Standard probes include repeating the question, prompting with, “Tell me more,” and asking such
questions, “Anything else?” and “How do you mean that?”
c. Record answers to questions without interpretation or editing. When a question is open-ended, this
means recording the answer verbatim.
d. Maintain a professional, neutral relationship with the respondent. Do not give personal information,
express opinions about the subject matter of the interview, or give feedback that implies a judgement about
the content of an answer (Fowler, 1991).

Semi-structured interviews are made up of questions that have been carefully phrased and tested to elicit
useful information in a consistent manner, so clinicians can be sure that they have inquired about the most
important aspects of particular disorders. Clinicians may depart from set questions to follow up on specific
issues, thus the label “semi-structured.”

Demerits:

1. It robs the interview of the spontaneous quality of two people talking about a problem.
2. If applied too rigidly, this type of interview may inhibit the client from volunteering useful information
that is not directly relevant to the questions being asked.

Unstructured interviews are less stringent about the assumptions of interviewing. Also referred to as open-
ended interviews, they allow more fluid interactions between the researcher and the respondent. In this
format, respondents are not forced to choose from a pre-designed range of answers; instead, they can
elaborate on their statements and connect them with other matters of relevance. The data collection
procedure is sometimes called ‘talking’ signifying its informal and conversational style.

Two variants of the unstructured format are the in-depth interview and ethnographic interview. It is
important to note, however, that the terms ‘unstructured,’ ‘in-depth’ and ‘ethnographic interviewing’ are
sometimes used inter-changeably in social science literature. Both in theory and in practice these orientations
overlap.
 I. In-depth Interview: Qualitative interviewing has been referred to as nondirective, unstructured,
nonstandardized, and open-ended interviewing. We use the phrase in-depth interviewing to refer to this
qualitative research method. In-depth interviews are interviews in which participants are encouraged and
prompted to talk in depth about the topic under investigation without the researcher’s use of predetermined,
focused, short answer questions. By in-depth qualitative interviewing, we mean face-to-face encounters
between the researcher and informants directed toward understanding informants’ perspectives on their lives,
experiences, or situations as expressed in their own words. As Seidman (2013) noted, “At the root of in-depth
interviewing is an interest in understanding the lived experience of other people and the meaning they make
of that experience” (p. 9). In-depth interviewing is founded on the notion that delving into the participant’s
“deeper self” produces more authentic data. Johnson (2002) lists some of the assumptions of in-depth
interviewing. 1st, understanding the deeper self in this context means seeing the world from the respondent’s
point of view, or gaining an empathic appreciation of his or her world. In-depth interviewers aim to gain
access into the hidden perceptions of their subjects.
Another assumption of in-depth interviewing is that it can and should be mutually beneficial to the
participantand the researcher. That is, in addition to helping the participantuncover suppressed feelings
through the interview process, the researcher also gains knowledge of his/ her own ‘hidden or conflicting
emotions’ (Johnson, 2002). Lastly according to Johnson, in-depth interviewing provides a multi-perspective
understanding of the topic. To put it in another way, by not limiting respondents to a fixed set of answers, in-
depth interviewing has the potential to reveal multiple, and sometimes conflicting attitudes about a given
topic.

As a whole, the procedural guidelines of in-depth interviewing encourage mutual self-disclosure in the
context of an emotionally charged atmosphere where the interviewer and interviewee freely express their
views about an issue (Douglas, 1985). The questions are designed to go beyond the presumed surface level of
respondents’ feelings and into the deeper layers of their consciousness. Thus, the inquiries are directed at the
unseen or the hidden dimensions of the [Link] Holstein and Gubrium (1995) note, this mode of data collection
shares with structured survey interviews the positivistic concern with locating ‘truth’ somewhere within the
participant. The difference is where structured interviewers ensure ‘truthfulness’ through a stringent regime
of rules and procedures, in-depth interviewers do it by gently probing the participant’s presumed inner, hidden
feelings. Both are relatively unconcerned about how the interactional aspects of the interview encounter and
its conditions may influence what is articulated. The type of unstructured interviewing that is more focused on
the social context of data gathering is ethnographic interviewing.

In-depth interviewing is a distinctive, often frustration craft. The in-depth interviewer wants to probe the
responses people give. To probe, the interviewer cannot be stonily impersonal. Yet the conversation lists in one
direction; the point is not to talk the way friends do… The craft consists in calibrating social distances without
making the participant feel being the focus of investigation (Sennett, 2003; 37-8).

As a qualitative research approach, in-depth interviewing has much in common with participant
observation. Like observers, interviewers come on slow initially. They try to establish rapport with informants,
ask nondirective questions early in the research, and learn what is important to informants before focusing on
the research interests.
The primary difference between participant observation and in-depth interviewing lies in the settings and
situations in which the research takes place. Whereas participant observers conduct their studies in natural
field situations, interviewers conduct theirs in situations specifically arranged for the purposes of the research.
This being said, most qualitative interviews take place in the subject’s physical world. The participant observer
gains firsthand knowledge of what people say and do in their everyday lives. The interviewer relies extensively
on verbal accounts of how people act and what they feel.

II. Ethnographic interviewing: It differs from in-depth interviewing in that it takes place in or is related
to a particular physical setting, sometimes referred to as the field. The ethnographic field is the social context
that guides the interview in terms of what questions are asked, which people are interviewed and how their
answers are interpreted. Ethnographic researchers typically rely on informants for assistance in navigating
the field. Additionally, ethnographic interviewers use observations from the field to assess the meaning and
relevance of their interview data.
In this, the methods of ethnography and interview are merged. The researcher enters the field or the
context in which the respondents are located, makes contact with the respondents and establishes rapport
before conducting interviews. This is meant to understand the insider’s perspective from an outsider’s
perspective who adopts the approach of an insider.
According to Spradley (1979, pp. 59-60), ethnographic interviews include the following elements that
distinguish them from such "friendly conversations":
• a specific request to hold the interview (resulting from the research question);
• ethnographic explanations in which the interviewer explains the project (why an interview at all) or the
noting of certain statements (why he or she notes what); these are completed by everyday language
explanations (with the aim that informants present relations in their language), interview explanations
(making clear why this specific form of talking is chosen, with the aim that the informant gets involved), and
explanations for certain (types of) questions, introducing the way of asking explicitly;
• ethnographic questions, that is descriptive questions, structural questions (answering them should show
how informants organize their knowledge about the issue), and contrast questions (they should provide
information about the meaning dimensions used by informants to differentiate objects and events in their
world).
In qualitative research, language is central. It is the most common form of data researchers produce, first in
oral form, then written as transcriptions or as excerpts in reports of qualitative work. At the same time,
though, language is method – it is the strategy by which, through interviewing, data are produced. In
qualitative work, language is central as both method and data, and a basic consideration is how we are to
treat the language data that are produced. Language is fundamental to human understanding, to how we
make sense of and shape the world around us: it is the most important sign system of human society (Berger
and Luckman, 1967). Language is reciprocal in nature. Through language we make sense of the world and
ourselves and then present these understandings to others. It is therefore vital that any qualitative researcher
acknowledges both the theoretical and practical position accorded to language in their work.

It is to be noted that in most qualitative work, language is the data as well as being the tool for generating
data. Language is the route to understanding how the respondent sees their world (in interpretative
traditions) or as the route to understanding the categories that shape their world (in more constructionist
traditions). Thus in a qualitative interview, the language used tells us about the respondent, and about their
world.
III. Group Interviews: One technique within the methodology of interviewing to have grown in popularity is
that of group interviewing. Watts and Ebbutt (1987), for example, have considered the advantages and
disadvantages of group interviewing as a means of collecting data in educational research. The advantages
the authors identify include the potential for discussions to develop, thus yielding a wide range of responses.
They explain, ‘such interviews are useful . . . where a group of people have been working together for some
time or common purpose, or where it is seen as important that everyone concerned is aware of what others in
the group are saying’ (Watts and Ebbutt 1987). The group interview can generate a wider range of responses
than in individual interviews. Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 100) add that group interviews might be useful for
gaining an insight into what might be pursued in subsequent individual interviews. There are practical and
organizational advantages, too. Prearranged groups can be used for the purpose in question by teachers with
minimum disruption. Group interviews are often quicker than individual interviews and hence are timesaving.
The group interview can also bring together people with varied opinions, or as representatives of different
collectivities.
Coreil (1995) categorized different types of group interviews as follows:

Table 1: Coreil’s typology of group interviews

Interview type Features Typical uses

Consensus panel Often composed of key informants or Agreeing clinical protocols,
experts. Seeks group consensus or resource prioritization
normative reactions. Morenarrow,
closed-ended stimulus material.
Focus group Participants selected to meet sampling Testing health promotion
criteria. Seeks broad range of ideas of materials, exploring service
open-ended topic. Formal, controlled pre- users’ views
arranged time and place. Usually audio-
recorded and transcribed for analysis.
Natural group Group exists independently of the Ethnographic data
research study. Format formal or collection (informal), social
informal. Interview guide loosely research (formal)
followed. Usually recorded by written
notes.
Community Open to all or large segments of a Project planning,
interview community. usually recorded by written programme evaluation
notes

 Focus group interviews: Focus groups are a form of qualitative interviewing that uses a researcher-led
group discussion to generate data. Gibbs (1997) suggests that the key features of a focus group are:
• organised discussion;
• collective activity;
• social events;
• interaction.
 According to Patton (2002, p. 385), “A focus group interview is an interview with a small group of people on
a specific topic. Groups are typically six to eight people who participate in the interview for one-half to two
hours.”
Blumer holds that: “A small number of individuals, brought together as a discussion or resource group, is
more valuable many times over than any representative sample. Such a group, discussing collectively their
sphere of life and probing into it as they meet one another's disagreements, will do more to lift the veils
covering the sphere of life than any other device that I know of.” (1969, p. 41)
A focus group interview involves groups of 6-8 members who form a circular arrangement in order to
have eye contact with the other members and the facilitator. According to R. A. Krueger (1994), a focus group
is a carefully planned discussion that is designed to obtain perceptions about a defined area of
interest in a permissive and nonthreatening environment. It can be used to explore a multitude of issues,
and it is a very popular method in the fields of both market research and psychology.
Here the researcher asks questions from a number of respondents at the same time to ‘stimulate discussion
and thereby understand the meanings and norms which underlie those group answers’ (Bloor et al, 2001).
According to Fontana and Frey (2000), historically, focus groups owe much to their popularity to marketing
researchers and political candidates who wanted to gauge the opinions of their consumers or constituents
about a particular product or issue. From there, focus groups gradually made headway into the social sciences
and now occupy a well-respected position among the various data collection methods.

The topic of discussion could revolve around certain sensitive topics or issues of interest to the researcher.
The group is selected to ensure that it is homogenous in terms of the types of experiences each of the
participants have. It is the task of the facilitator to get the discussion started. The aim is to understand the
opinions and thoughts of the group members towards the issue being studied. The participants’
opinions are accepted as they are. Confidentiality is assured and ethical rules are followed.
A focus group ideally should consist of 10 to 12 people, although it certainly can be smaller or much
larger. As Waclawski and Rogelberg (2002) note, it is typically led by a facilitator who asks the research
questions and is assisted by a scribe who takes notes. It is vital that the focus group be led by both a
facilitator and a scribe; one person alone cannot sufficiently manage the group, ask questions, probe for
additional information, and capture session notes in real time. Although it is often tempting to consider
streamlining the process to have one person performing both roles, this is not advisable under any
circumstances. The duration of the focus group generally runs from one to two hours. In terms of
location, a place where people feel that they can talk freely is best. This will lead to a better quality of
data. For the most part, an offsite conference room is preferred. This typically engenders an environment of
openness and fosters candid communication. These factors are critical to the success of a focus group.
According to some, including Krueger, the focus group can be as structured or unstructured as the
facilitator desires. However, Waclawski and Rogelberg indicate that this is not considered best practice.
Focus groups tend to run most smoothly and produce higher-quality data when the content of study is
determined well in advance of the session. To accomplish this, most facilitators develop and use what is known
as a discussion guide. This is a document that contains a scripted introduction to the session, the specific
research questions to be posed to the group, and the session close. The introduction is important because it
sets the tone and ground rules for the focus group. It typically contains a welcome statement; an introduction
to the topic of the focus group; an introduction to the facilitator, scribe, and participants; and rules regarding
the confidentiality of the data and the ultimate use of the results. The majority of the discussion guide focuses
on the questions for the meeting and appropriate probes for follow-up
 Initially, there is a warming-up session where the members get to know each other. Then, the facilitator
tries to acquaint them with the rules of conduct. The facilitator is then expected to raise the topic. It is their
task to get all the members involved in the discussion and have them share their opinions with the group. A
good focus group discussion is one where the participants discuss their views openly and honestly while the
facilitator observes and moderates the discussion. The facilitator may employ another person to record the
interview and may include a certain time for transcription.
A focus group interview may start off with an introductory question. This may be followed or preceded by
basic rules, followed by the facilitator asking some short questions to encourage the subjects to open up. The
facilitator has to keep in mind that social loafing should not take place. The facilitator also needs to have
unconditional acceptance, neutrality and be non - judgemental. They should aim to understand and
find out the perspective of each of the participants.

Reason for using Focus Groups: Focus group methodology has no single set purpose and they can be used
for several, quite distinct purposes. Calder (1977) claimed that there are three different ways of using focus
groups:
• The exploratory: This describes attempts to generate information and knowledge in a field which has
previously been largely under-researched. So it is a trawling approach which seeks basic knowledge and ideas
for a new field.
• The clinical This describes attempts to understand why people do what they do using the skills of a
trained analyst or expert.
• The phenomenological This is using focus groups to understand things from the point of view of other
groups in society. The researcher learns how different sorts of people feel about something.
Group discussions are used for various reasons. Pollock prefers them to single interviews because "studying
the attitudes, opinions and practices of human beings in artificial isolation from the contexts in which they
occur should be avoided" (1955, p. 34). The starting point here is that opinions, which are presented to the
interviewer in interviews and surveys, are detached from everyday forms of communication and relations.
Group discussions on the other hand correspond to the way in which opinions are produced, expressed, and
exchanged in everyday life.
Another feature of group discussions is that corrections by the group concerning views that are not correct,
not socially shared, or extreme are available as means for validating statements and views. The group
becomes a tool for reconstructing individual opinions more appropriately. However, some researchers studied
the group opinion (i.e., the participants' consensus negotiated in the discussion about a certain issue).
Mangold (1973) takes the group opinion as an empirical issue, which is expressed in the discussion but exists
independently of the situation and applies for the group outside the situation.
Another aim of group discussions is the analysis of common processes of problem solving in the group.
Therefore, a concrete problem is introduced and the group's task is to discover, through a discussion of
alternatives, the best strategy for solving it. Thus, approaches that take group discussions as a medium for
better analyzing individual opinions can be differentiated from those that understand group discussions as a
medium for a shared group opinion which goes beyond individuals.
However, studying processes of negotiating or solving problems in groups should be separated from
analyzing states like a given group opinion which is only expressed in the discussion.

 The Steps involved in Focus Group Discussion:

 (i) Planning the study: A study may be the researcher’s initiative or it may be instigated by others such as
organizations commissioning research. In either case, it is important to develop a (shared) understanding of
what the study is about. Clarity is needed about the following (according to Krueger & Casey, 2000):
• The research problem that the study seeks to illuminate.
• The factors leading to the study being commissioned. Often, for student work, these factors will be a class
exercise, a dissertation or research project as part of one’s degree, or similar. Each of these will place different
demands on the study planned.
• The specific purpose of the study.
• The types of information the study seeks to obtain.
• What types of information are prioritized for the data collection.
• The person(s) who want the information to be collected.
• What will be done with the information.
(ii) Optimizing the choice of group participants: What are the important characteristics of your focus
group participants? This is not a matter of defining sampling characteristics but to ensure the richness of the
data. What sorts of participants will maximize the quality of the information obtained? We are not talking
‘convenience sampling’ here but purposive sampling aimed at optimizing data quality and relevance. The only
rule-of-thumb is that there is likely to be a variety of particularly appropriate types of group members. The
more effort put into including them the better.
(iii) Optimising the group structure: The point of a focus group lies in the directed discussion
it produces. It follows from this that all group members should contribute reasonably equally. If one or two
members dominate then the purpose is defeated. Although the moderator’s responsibility is to prevent
individuals dominating, this may be difficult if the choice of members was not optimal. A rule of thumb is that
a focus group consisting of similar people of equivalent status will generate quality data. A focus group of
people of different social status (e.g. superiors and subordinates) is imbalanced and may effectively silence
some members. The moderator can invite non-contributing participants to talk about a topic. Or the length of
any contribution may be limited to a minute or so. As already explained, two obvious factors can inhibit
contributions:
• A very homogeneous group in which everyone shares much the same perspective will probably curtail
discussion. It is clearly difficult to choose where on the homogeneous- heterogeneous dimension the group
should be.
• If the group contains people of an apparently superior status then the group may defer to them. This may
simply be that that certain individuals appear to be more knowledgeable and other members accept what
they say unquestioningly.
Focus group methodology requires multiple groups to be studied. No matter how productive a single group
may be, the researcher should plan for several differentgroups. A minimum of three or four groups may suffice
when all of the groups have similar characteristics. Krueger and Casey (2000) refer to this as a single-category
design.
In addition to single-category designs (the simplest structure), they list the following:
• Multiple-category design: This is where the focus groups are organised into several particular types of
respondents. For example, in a study of cancer the multiple categories might be (a) cancer patients, (b) cancer
survivors and (c) carers of cancer patients.
• Double-layered design: This is where the groups employed are distinguishable on two dimensions. These
dimensions might be age (younger and older) and cancer sufferer versus cancer survivor. This yields four
 groups: (1) younger cancer sufferers, (2) older cancer sufferers, (3) younger cancer survivors and (4) older
cancer survivors. The researcher would probably study three or four groups in each of these four categories.
• Broad-involvement design: This acknowledges that there are some areas of research in which a broad
range of groups feel they have a relevant voice. As a consequence, a variety of groups are identified to
represent this range of interest groups. For example, the researcher may be studying neighbour disputes.
Groups which might have an interest in taking part in focus groups might include: (a) mediators employed by
local authorities, (b) the police, (c) people with difficult neighbours, (d) neighbours who have been taken to
court by the authorities and (e) officers of the local authority. Of course, by including such a wide range of
groups, the research becomes increasingly demanding of time and money.
(iv) Planning how many focus groups Although one rule of thumb is to have three or four groups for every
category of group studied, this is not a definitive formulation. There are problems in stipulating the number of
focus groups to run even in full light of the purpose of the study in question. The ‘saturation’ criterion might be
appropriate. This is that data is collected until nothing new emerges from additional groups. This may appear
to be a subjective criterion but it is of practical value within qualitative research’s ethos. Grounded theory
describes this as theoretical saturation
(v) Planning what questions to ask and when Relatively few questions are required for a focus group
compared with the equivalent structured interview. A good question is posed in a way which communicates
well and avoids causing confusion. The questions should be pitched at a level appropriate for the sorts of
people participating in your focus group; long questions are to be avoided as should complex ones (i.e.
compound questions). Complex questions contain more than one question.
The sequencing of questions is less easily dealt with. Krueger and Casey (2000) present a model for the
sequencing of questions for focus groups. According to Krueger and Casey, the sequence is (1) opening
questions, (2) introductory questions, (3) transition questions, (4) key questions and (5) ending questions.
(vi) Role of the Moderator: There are a number of characteristics which are important in a moderator
(Gibbs, 1997):
• avoids expressing personal opinions;
• avoids appearing judgemental. The moderator is responsible for the efficient and successful running of
each focus group irrespective of who the main investigator is. It is clearly a skilled and complex role which
places considerable demands in terms of interpersonal skills and also the discipline of remaining essentially
detached from the discussion. Moderators, for example, do not involve themselves in the debate. The focus
group moderator has many tasks (Gibbs, 1997), though things can vary somewhat more in practice. For
example, there are circumstances when the moderator allows much freer debate with little steering (Flick,
2002). This would depend on the purpose of the research. The moderator’s tasks include:
• At the start of the meeting, describing and explaining the purpose and objectives of the session.
• Ensuring that members of the focus group feel relaxed and comfortable and feel, ultimately, that this was
a positive experience.
• Posing clear questions for discussion.
• Controlling the discussion by asking supplementary questions designed to open up the debate or to
encourage the participants to focus more precisely on the issues fundamental to the research.
• Ensuring that all members of the group participate and preventing the dominance of a small number of
individuals. There are various ways to achieve this, including targeting some individuals with questions aimed
at encouraging them to participate.
 • Highlighting differences in perspectives which emerge in the focus group discussion in order that the
group might engage with the nature of the differences.
• Stopping conversational drifts which steer the conversation away from the topic of the focus group.
• Recording the focus group session (either just the conversation or video) but usually the moderator also
takes notes in the session.
• If the moderator has an assistant then he/she may take much more comprehensive notes than a sole
moderator could and also take responsibility for recording the session. They may also deal with logistic issues
such as refreshments. The assistant can be involved more actively such as asking supplementary questions
(Krueger & Casey, 2000).

Applications of focus group discussion: Focus groups have many applications in the field of social
psychology and industrial and organisational psychology. They can be used either as a stand-alone
research method or as an add-on to other methods. Focus groups are often used alone when the researcher
wants to study a topic in depth with a group of individuals who can provide significant insight beyond
what a traditional survey offers. They are often used to collect data on participant attitudes or opinions
about a particular topic or a set of related topics. For example, an organisation might conduct a focus group
to assess its employees’ level of satisfaction with its current benefits program, to find out whether employees
trust senior management, or even to look at employees’ attitudes and opinions about the recognition they
receive for doing their jobs.
At other times, focus groups are used in conjunction with surveys (typically after the fact) to explore
issues that were unearthed by the survey but not explained in sufficient detail to satisfy the researcher
or to answer the research question at hand. Unlike a survey, the focus group enables an open dialogue
between the researcher and participants, allowing important issues to be explored in depth. In this way,
focus groups can be very useful, especially if the survey does not contain any write-in or open-ended questions
or if the results of the survey are unclear in some regard.

Strengths of focus group discussions:

It is effective for cross-cultural studies because people can talk in their everyday language and
communicate as they normally would. This means that everyone can participate (even those people who can’t
read and write).
People can have opportunities to develop their own ideas based on what they hear from others.
It is economical in terms of time as more data can be gathered in a shorter period.
It can identify cultural values and/or group norms as they exist within the group.

Limitations of focus group discussions:

People may be scared of sharing in a group, particularly so in focus groups meant for researching
sensitive issues.
Some group behaviour, such as conformity, might occur and affect the data.
 Table 2: Comparison of more and less structured approaches to focus groups

More structured approaches Less structured approaches

Goal: Answer researcher’s questions Goal: Understanding participants’ thinking
Researchers’ interests are dominant. Participants’ interests are dominant
Questions set the agenda for discussion. Questions guide discussion
Larger amounts of more specific questions Fewer more general questions
Specific amounts of time per questions Flexible allocation of time
Moderator directs discussion Moderator facilitates interaction
Moderator ‘refocuses’ off-topic remarks Moderator can explore new directions
Participants address the moderator Participants talk to each other

According to Morgan (2002), the decision about selecting a structured versus an unstructured approach
depends on the research agenda. Another consideration is the participants’ degree of familiarity and interest
in the topic. Morgan’s ideal focus group is one in which the moderator is minimally involved. For him, the
process should start with an engaging opening question, one that is ‘designed to capture the participants’
interests so that they themselves would explore nearly all of the issues that a moderator might have probed’
(2002). Bloor et al (2001) recommend that the role of the moderator or facilitator should not be confused
with that of a ‘controller.’Berg (2001) recommends the following guidelines:

1. Introduction and introductory activities

2. Statement of the basic rules or guidelines for the interview\
3. Short question-and-answer discussion
4. Special activities and exercises
5. Guidance for dealing with sensitive issues.

Rubin and Rubin (1995) state that in focus groups, the goal is to let people spark off one another,
suggesting dimensions and nuances of the original problem that any one individual might not have thought of.
Sometimes a totally different understanding of a problem emerges from the group discussion. Other
advantages are that focus groups can be very stimulating to the respondents (they won’t become bored), and
participants have the opportunity to elaborate on each other’s answers to produce richer data (Fontana and
Frey, 2000).

However the approach is not without its problems. Some of the challenges of focus group interviewing
include:

1. One person could dominate the group;

2. Respondents may be reluctant to discuss sensitive topics in the presence of others; or they could distort
their answers in an effort to appear socially desirable;
3. Some individuals may be shy and thus require more encouragement to participate; and
4. The interviewer has to be skilled at managing the group dynamics and asking questions simultaneously
(Merton et al, 1956)
  Other types of interviews:
I. Intake Interview (Initial Interview): This is the initial contact between the client and the interviewer.
Usually, it is quite brief. In the initial session, the interviewer is a stranger for which the client might find it
difficult to divulge information to such a stranger. It is the responsibility of the interviewer to create a
congenial atmosphere. In psychiatry, the initial interview serves several quite different purposes: (Rutter and
Cox, 1981)
a. It is a means of asking questions to obtain factual information on historical events, happenings and
activities.
b. It serves as a stimulus to elicit emotions, feelings and attitudes.
c. It begins to establish a relationship that will constitute the basis for further therapeutic contact.
d. It helps to assess the nature of the problem.

Its goal is to:

a. Establish a relationship with the client;

b. Assess the motivation of the client for therapy
c. Lay the ground work for possible further contact.

The form of the interview is determined by the range of skills employed by the clinician in response to what
the client has to say. The content of the interview is not only determined by the client, but also by the specific
topics addressed by the clinician. As such, form of interview has an impact on content of interview. The skill of
interviewing lies in getting the balance right between an “open-ended” and “checking out” style of
interviewing which can encourage a client to talk more, and may be essential in engaging a person who is
finding it difficult to talk to express feelings (Hopkinson et al., 1981) and a probing and systematic style of
interviewing, which seems to be important in getting good quality factual information (Cox et al., 1981). A
skilled interviewer is able to demonstrate flexibility and to switch between styles during the interview in order
to carry out the different tasks of the assessment interview, as well as to respond to cues provided by the client.

II. Mental Status Interview/ Mental Status Examination: It is a depth study after intake interview, and
involves a systematic observation of somebody’s behavior. Its purpose is to assess mental pre-occupation and
behavior pathology. They can be very structured and detailed (Wing et al., 1974), but mostly, they are
performed relatively quickly by experienced clinicians in the course of interviewing or observing a client.

There are six categories in the process of collection of information:

a. General appearance, attitude and behavior: It can be understood from one’s overt behavior, attire,
appearance, posture and expressions. Eg. Psychomotor retardation, leg twitch etc.
b. Discourse: It refers to the manner of speaking. There may be some speech anomalies present.
c. Mood and affect: Mood is the pre-dominant feeling state of the individual while “affect” refers to the
feeling state that accomplishes what one says at a given point in time. Determining mood and affect is an
important part of the mental status examination. eg. Blunted/ flat affect etc.
d. Sensorium and intellect: Sensorium relates to awareness of surroundings in terms of person (self and
clinician), time, and place. The clinician also makes a gross/ rough estimate of intelligence that is noticeable
from the type of vocabulary, use of abstractions and metaphors etc. used by the client. So the areas of interest
to the clinician are:
1. Orientation
 2. Memory
3. Perception
4. Intelligence
e. Mental content and specific pre-occupation: The thought process of the client can be understood
from:
1. Rate of speech
2. Continuity of speech
3. Content of speech (delusions, hallucinations etc.)

Insight: It relates to whether the client understands the extent of his disorder that has to be explored.

III. Insight-oriented and symptom-oriented interviewing: Insight-oriented interviewing tends to

emphasize eliciting and interpreting unconscious conflicts, anxieties and defenses; the symptom-oriented
approach emphasizes the classification of client’s complaints and dysfunctions as defined by specific
diagnostic categories (Othmer and Othmer).
IV. Case History Interviews: Sometimes additional or more elaborate and detailed sequencing of case
history material is required in order to make final decisions. In this case a special interview is completed in
which the focus is only on ascertaining the nature of the person’s problems in historical sequence, with a
possible focus on critical periods of development or events, antecedents and precipitants of behavior, and
other matters of clinical interest. Case history interviews can be conducted with the respondent directly, the
respondent’s family, friends, or others.

V. Diagnostic Interviews: Here, the clinician attempts to categorize the behavior of the client into some
formal diagnostic system. For psychopathology, there are two official diagnostic classification systems
presently in widespread use. The first is the official classification system of the World Health Organization—
International Classification of Disease–Tenth Edition (World Health Organization, 1992). The second is the
DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 1980, 1987, 1994).

VI. Follow-Up Interviews: These are specific-focused interviews, which usually have a single purpose.
Perhaps it is to review highlights of assessment results or to evaluate quality of services and patient
satisfaction received from an HMO. Researchers may conduct a debriefing interview when the research
involves deception.

VII. Forensic Interviews: Psychologists may be called upon to contribute their expertise in legal matters
that may be complicated by factors related to mental health. These factors include evaluations for
dangerousness, competency to stand trial, various insanity pleas, behaviors that may be induced by substance
abuse, or custody evaluations, to name a few. These interviews are typically far more investigative than many
other types of interviews, often are of longer duration, and may occur over multiple sessions. Often the person
being interviewed is not the client at all, but rather the court or perhaps private attorneys who retain these
services on behalf of their clients. Forensic evaluations do not carry with them the same protection of privacy
and confidentiality of material obtained in the evaluation as do most other mental health interviews.

VIII. Screening Interviews: These interviews are usually brief and designed to elicit information on a
specific topic. They may include such areas as determining whether a client is eligible for services, whether the
patient is acutely suicidal, whether the patient meets the criteria for a particular diagnosis, or whether the
patient needs to be hospitalized as a danger to self or others. Screening interviews are very common in
psychology and may in fact be the most frequent kind of clinical interview.

IX. Specialized Interviews: Sometimes the clinician needs to conduct an interview for a special purpose,
such as determining the ability to stand trial, determining legal insanity, assessing the need for psychiatric
hospitalization, or making a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder.

X. Termination Interview: Very often, clinicians ending services to a client conclude with an interview
designed to review treatment goals, progress, and future plans. Clinicians working in inpatient settings often
have an ending interview to reinforce the need for continued outpatient follow-up services. Addiction
specialists usually have a last session to review planned aftercare and to highlight patient risk factors for
relapse. Industrial psychologists meet with a person to review highlights of assessment findings.