RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

380 INTERVIEWS
and administered centrally, indeed there are
greater guarantees that the researcher actually
carries out the interview as required.
Interviewer effects are reduced.
There is greater uniformity in the conduct
of the interview and the standardization of
questions.
There is greater interviewer control of the
interview.
The results tend to be quantitative.
They are quicker to administer than face-toface
interviews because respondents will only
usually be prepared to speak on the telephone
for, at most, fifteen minutes.
Call-back costs are so slight as to make frequent
call-backs possible, enhancing reliability and
contact.
Many groups, particularly of busy people, can
be reached at times more convenient to them
than if a visit were to be made.
They are safer to undertake than, for example,
having to visit dangerous neighbourhoods.
They can be used to collect sensitive data,
as possible feelings of threat of face-to-face
questions about awkward, embarrassing or
difficult matters are absent.
It does not rely on the literacy of the respondent
(as, for example, in questionnaires).
The use of the telephone may put a little
pressure on the respondent to respond, and
it is usually the interviewer rather than the
interviewee who terminates the call.
Response rate is higher than, for example,
questionnaires.
Clearly this issue is not as cut-and-dried as
the claims made for it, as there are several
potential problems with telephone interviewing,
for example (see also Chapter 6):
It is very easy for respondents simply to hang
up on the caller.
Motivation to participate may be lower than
for a personal interview.
There is a chance of skewed sampling, as not all
of the population have a telephone (often those
lower income households – perhaps the very
people that the researcher wishes to target)
or can hear (e.g. elderly people and second
language speakers in addition to those with
hearing difficulties).
There is a lower response rate at weekends.
The standardized format of telephone interviews
may prevent thoughtful or deep answers
from being provided.
Some people have a deep dislike of telephones,
which sometimes extends to a phobia, and
this inhibits their responses or willingness to
participate.
Respondents may not disclose information
because of uncertainty about actual (even
though promised) confidentiality.
Respondents may come to snap judgements
without the adequate or deeper reflection
necessary for a full answer to serious issues.
Respondents may not wish to spend a long time
on the telephone, so telephone interviews tend
to be briefer than other forms of interview.
Concentration spans are shorter than in a faceto-face
interview.
The interviewer has to remain bright and
focused, listen very carefully and respond – it
is tiring.
Questions tend to be closed, fixed and simple.
There is a limit on the complexity of the
questions that can be put.
Response categories must be very simple or else
respondents will forget what they are.
Many respondents (up to 25 per cent, according
to Oppenheim 1992: 97) will be ‘ex-directory’
and so their numbers will not be available in
telephone directories.
Respondents may withhold important information
or tell lies, as the non-verbal behaviour
that frequently accompanies this is not witnessed
by the interviewer.
It is often more difficult for complete strangers
to communicate by telephone than face-toface,
particularly as non-verbal cues are absent.
Respondents are naturally suspicious (e.g. of
the caller trying to sell a product).
One telephone might be shared by several
people.
Some respondents feel that telephone interviews
afford less opportunity for them to