Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviewing

Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviewing
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Name
Professor’s Name
Date
Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviewing
Unstructured and semi-structured interviews are effective when undertaken by expert researchers who know how to ask the right questions and probing without losing their focus. In particular, I found semi-structured interviews to be better since some questions are predetermined and others unplanned, allowing the researcher to probe and seek more information when the need arises. Interviewers have a chance to seek more clarification. In unstructured interviews, all the questions asked are not predetermined. It means that the researcher asks random and different questions to the respondents.
I agree with Marcel Saghir that unstandardized or free-style clinical interviewing is more effective when used by experienced psychiatrists (Saghir, 1971). Saghir makes it clear that unstructured interviewing is usually used by experienced personnel who fully understand the type of information they are supposed to gather. The best thing about this method of interviewing is that the interviewer can verbal and non-verbal stimuli and other things depending on what the client likes to make it easy to get correct answers. For example, the expert can take the client to his or her favorite place since the person already knows the questions to ask and the answers that would help facilitate effective treatment. However, inexperienced psychiatrists are likely to get lost if the use unstructured clinical interviews since no protocol or order is provided for them to follow.
Andrea diSessa argues that clinical interviews are social interactional events. They are similar to unstructured and semi-structured interviews in the sense that the interviewer does not predetermine the questions asked. The most significant that determines the quality of the data collected is the environment. I concur with the author that ecological validity is the primary consideration when carrying out unstructured and semi-structured clinical interviews. For instance, individuals are likely to share more information when they are in their native habitat (diSessa, 2007). However, a coercive environment, such as a courtroom limit participants’ expression of their ideas. Moreover, the interviewer should not be authoritative so that the interviewee can give detailed descriptions without disruptions. The former filters the details and record what it relevant based on the context.
Based on the comparative analysis between unstructured and semi-structured interviewing, the former was found to facilitate in-depth data collection and enabled adverse and positive healthcare aspects. For instance, unstructured interviewing allows respondents to describe their expectations and experiences (Gibson, 1998). On the contrary, yes or no questions in semi-structured interviews limit the interviewees’ responses in semi-structured clinical interviews. I concur with the author that unstructured interviewing can be more productive and effective than semi-structured interviews, particularly when it involves sharing experiences and discussing expectations. The participants get enough time...