Interview vs. Observation

Attribute	Interview	Observation
Method	Questioning	Watching
Directness	Direct	Indirect
Subjectivity	Subjective	Objective
Control	Interviewer-controlled	Observer-controlled
Interpretation	Verbal	Visual

Introduction

Interview and observation are two common methods used in research to gather information and data. Both methods have their own unique attributes and advantages, which make them suitable for different research purposes. In this article, we will compare the attributes of interview and observation to understand their differences and similarities.

Interview

Interview is a method of data collection where a researcher asks questions to a participant to gather information. There are different types of interviews, such as structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, and unstructured interviews. In a structured interview, the questions are predetermined and asked in a specific order. In a semi-structured interview, the researcher has a set of questions but can also ask follow-up questions based on the participant's responses. In an unstructured interview, the researcher has a general topic to discuss, but the conversation is more open-ended.

• Structured interviews have the advantage of being easy to replicate, as the same questions are asked to all participants.
• Semi-structured interviews allow for flexibility in questioning, which can lead to more in-depth responses from participants.
• Unstructured interviews can uncover unexpected insights and perspectives from participants.

Observation

Observation is a method of data collection where a researcher observes and records the behavior of participants in a natural setting. There are two types of observation: participant observation, where the researcher actively participates in the setting being observed, and non-participant observation, where the researcher observes from a distance without interacting with the participants. Observation can be done in a controlled environment, such as a laboratory, or in a natural setting, such as a workplace or community.

• Participant observation allows the researcher to gain a deeper understanding of the participants' behavior by experiencing it firsthand.
• Non-participant observation reduces the risk of bias that may arise from the researcher's presence in the setting.
• Observation in a natural setting provides a more authentic representation of participants' behavior compared to a controlled environment.

Comparison

Interview and observation have several differences in terms of their attributes and advantages. One key difference is the level of interaction between the researcher and the participants. In an interview, the researcher directly interacts with the participants by asking questions and engaging in a conversation. This interaction can lead to more detailed and nuanced responses from participants, as they have the opportunity to clarify their answers and provide additional information. On the other hand, observation involves passive observation of participants' behavior without direct interaction. This can provide a more objective view of participants' behavior, as it is not influenced by the researcher's presence.

Another difference between interview and observation is the level of control the researcher has over the data collection process. In an interview, the researcher has more control over the questions asked and the information gathered, as they can guide the conversation and probe for specific details. This allows the researcher to focus on specific research objectives and gather targeted information. In contrast, observation involves more passive data collection, as the researcher simply observes and records participants' behavior without intervening. This can lead to a more holistic view of participants' behavior, as it captures their actions in a natural setting without interference.

Similarities

Despite their differences, interview and observation also share some similarities in terms of their attributes and advantages. Both methods are qualitative in nature, as they focus on gathering rich, detailed information about participants' behavior, attitudes, and experiences. This qualitative data can provide valuable insights into complex phenomena that cannot be easily quantified. Additionally, both interview and observation allow researchers to study participants in their natural environment, which can lead to a more authentic understanding of their behavior and interactions.

Furthermore, both interview and observation require careful planning and preparation to ensure the validity and reliability of the data collected. Researchers must consider factors such as the selection of participants, the design of interview questions or observation protocols, and the ethical considerations involved in conducting research with human subjects. By following rigorous research practices, researchers can enhance the credibility of their findings and draw meaningful conclusions from the data collected through interview and observation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, interview and observation are two valuable methods of data collection in research, each with its own unique attributes and advantages. Interview allows for direct interaction with participants and targeted data collection, while observation provides a more objective view of participants' behavior in a natural setting. Despite their differences, both methods offer researchers the opportunity to gather rich, qualitative data and gain insights into complex phenomena. By understanding the attributes of interview and observation, researchers can choose the method that best suits their research objectives and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in their field.