University of Applied Sciences, Fulda

Standardised Open-ended Interview

“The standardised open-ended interview consists of a set of questions worded and arranged with the intention of taking each respondent through the same sequence and asking each respondent the same questions with essentially the same words . . . [this standardisation] reduces the possibility of bias that comes from having different interviews for different people, including the problem of obtaining more comprehensive data from certain persons while getting less systematic information from others”. [Quinn Patton, 1990, p. 281]
This sort of interview is preferred, especially in cases where it is only possible to interview participants for a limited period of time. Sometimes it is only possible to interview the participants once. And, of course, this does not exclude other
situations in which this type of interview can be used. In this study, as was explained, the writer faced some limitations which led to the choice of standardised open-ended interview.
First, it was not possible to interview the participants more than once, due to a lack of time and facilities. Second, the interview was to find out about what they think about the program , and limit the number of variables as much as possible.
The basic purpose of this type of interview is to minimise the interviewer effects by asking the same question of each respondent. Moreover, the interview is systematic and the necessity for interviewer judgment during the interview is reduced. Taking both points into consideration were of great importance. The interviewer was herself a participant in the program and was on very good terms with most of the interviewees. The friendly relationship and the fact that the interviewees knew the writers view's on the shortcomings of the program could have affected the responses to the questions. Therefore, eliminating the effects of interviewer’s views was of great importance. Furthermore, standardised questions could ensure harmony in all the areas where responses were required. Asking different questions from the interviewees could have affected the credibility of the study.
The uniformity of questions, however, does not mean that the interviewer is not allowed to change the questions or ask about related topics which come to light during the interview. Some of the interviewees had language problems
which hindered the exact understanding of the question. For example, the word ‘politics’ usually is understood as referring to the formal policies of political parties or governments. This word was misunderstood by some of the interviewees when question number 4 in the first part was asked: ”To what extent did you feel politics played a role in your previous studies?” What this question asks is actually: Did you have to behave in a certain way with a certain professor because otherwise s/he would fail you in the exam? Did you have to observe certain codes in the classroom, for example, in Professor X’s class one should not dispute his arguments? Here the interviewer had to change the wording or give explanations in order to help some of the interviewees to understand the question.
The same complication occurred with question number 3. Here, though the wording is quite clear, the concept was complex. For some of the students, expecting services other than having classrooms, teachers and standard minimum facilities, such as a library, was not imaginable. The reason, of course, has a lot to do with the lack of sufficient financial help the universities in non-western countries face.
The weakness of this approach to interviewing is that it limits the interviewer in pursuing those topics which pop up during the interview and could be of relevance. Consequently, if a participants has a unique experience, it cannot be pursued or analysed. This type of interview, therefore, could limit the individual differences, depending on the nature of the theme of the interview.