Qualitative Interviews in Psychology: Problems and Validity

Introduction: Mind, Behaviour, and the Scientific Method

Investigators in the discipline of psychology strive to determine the factors that affect the mind and behaviour and how these interactions occur. In order to form hypotheses and answer questions, these scientists adhere to the scientific method. However, psychological studies often provide weak reliability and validity due to issues such as small sample sizes, inappropriate or absent control groups, and an inability to determine causation through effective manipulation of an independent variable. The methods used to collect data also affect the generalizability of results and the likelihood that results can be replicated.

Although many studies in psychology are quantitative — relying on numerical data to produce results — the field frequently deals with information regarding emotions and personal accounts. This kind of information is more subjective and is sometimes more effectively evaluated through qualitative investigations. How effective are these qualitative studies? How convincing are findings from studies that rely more heavily on subjective reporting of personal experiences?

The Role of Qualitative Research in Psychology

The scientific thought process is grounded in comparison, control, and manipulation (Stanovich, 2009). These elements are necessary in order to confirm certain conclusions while ruling out alternative explanations. This is achieved either by controlling an experimental situation or by observing naturally occurring situations (Stanovich, 2009). Qualitative studies usually fall under the latter category, and information is collected through qualitative interviews. There are several problematic issues that arise in open-ended, conversational interviews used in qualitative psychological research (Potter & Hepburn, 2005). These problems involve study design, the manner in which interviews are conducted, analysis of the collected data, and how findings are subsequently reported (Potter & Hepburn, 2005).

Contingent Problems in Qualitative Interviews

Potter and Hepburn (2005) suggested that qualitative interviews present two categories of problems: contingent problems and necessary problems. Contingent problems are those which may or may not arise depending on whether sufficient attention is given to certain aspects of the study. These problems include the interviewer being deleted from the interpretation of findings, flaws in how interactions are represented, insufficient specificity of observations, lack of transparency about how interviews are set up, and a failure to treat the interview situation as a genuine interaction (Potter & Hepburn, 2005).

These are widespread problems found commonly throughout research based on qualitative interviews, and psychological research in general could be drastically improved by correcting them (Potter & Hepburn, 2005). Potter and Hepburn (2005) suggest that a productive starting point would be for researchers to acknowledge the presence of these issues and to justify why certain components of qualitative interviews are used and how they contribute to improved execution of the study.

Conclusion: Improving Qualitative Psychological Research

Since necessary problems cannot be eliminated, their impact must be limited by consciously designing and conducting interviews with these potential issues in mind. Together, both contingent and necessary problems highlight the significant challenges facing qualitative research in psychology. Addressing contingent problems through transparent reporting and deliberate study design, while remaining alert to necessary problems throughout data collection and analysis, offers the most viable path toward more rigorous and credible qualitative psychological research.

References

Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 1–27.

Stanovich, K. (2009). How to Think Straight About Psychology (9th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.