Interviewing is a conversation directed to a definite purpose other than satisfaction in the conversation itself

The nature of interviews

Bingham, Moore, and Oustad suggest that "interviewing is a conversation directed to a definite purpose other than satisfaction in the conversation itself." Similarly, Kahn and Cannell argue that an interview is "a specialized pattern of verbal interaction initiated for specific purpose, and focused on some specific content area, with a subsequent elimination of extraneous material." Goyer, Reading, and Rickey term interviewing "a form of oral communication involving two parties, at least one of whom has a preconcei ved and serious purpose and both of whom speak and listen from time to time."

These definitions in turn suggest several differences between interviews and other forms of dyadic communication. First, while virtually all interpersonal communication has some underlying purpose, interview has a purpose which is more clearly defined-and more directly sought. Second, interviews typically involve careful preparation by the interviewer. Although we often "Ian" conversations we anticipate having with others, thinking. Now, if she says so-and-so, I'll say this, rarely is that planning as thorough as the planning preceding an interview. Third, the communication roles of the participants are predetermined to an extent not usually found in other types of interpersonal communication. Both participants realize that the interviewer will ask questions and the interviewee will respond, and both of them usually adhere to those role prescriptions. Finally, while the dominance dimension of an interpersonal relationship usually is determined by situational factors such as organizational role or status, dominance in the interview is determined solely by the communication roles of the paI1icipants. Since the interviewer directs the conversation through her or his use of questions, the intelviewer always is the dominant individual. While, the company president usually dominates a shop foreman, a foreman interviewer would dominate the president interviewee during the interview itself. Interviews therefore differ from other interpersonal interactions in that they have a specific purpose, are carefully planned, have predetermined communication roles, and generate situation-specific dominance.

Gordon lists several additional benefits of the interview.

First, it allows the information seeker greater opportunity to elicit complete and accurate information from the interviewee. The interviewer is able to assess immediately the respondent's answers and to seek further information or elaboration if necessary-things one cannot do when administering a questionnaire.

Second; the interviewer can Clarify the questions. If someone filling out a questionnaire misinterprets a question, the person collecting the information may wind up with elToneous information and incolTect conclusions; in the interview, however, the interviewer can determine immediately whether the interviewee has understood the question or seen the implications the question calTies. Should such comprehension not be present, the interviewer can remedy the situation immediately.

Third, most forms of interviews allow greater flexibility of questioning than does a questionnaire or other informatibn-gathering meihods. Interview forms occur along a continuum ranging from extremely su'uctured to extremely unstructured. Although flexibility is minimal in the structured situation, the interviewer still is able to restate or rephrase questions. In unsu'uctured interviews, flexibility is maximized; the interviewer can let the flow of conversation dictate what questions she or he will ask. Fourth, the interview situation allows careful control by the interviewer. Questionnaires may be complete anywhere and letters may be read and answered in any situation. In the interview, however, the interviewer is able to choose
and, to some degree, control the interview environment. If the interviewer chooses to speak with a respondent in the respondent's home, the interviewer's control of the situation will be minimal. If the respondent visit the interviewer, the latter's control is maximized. The interviewer can control interruptions, arrange the furniture, dictate the time of the interview, and so on. Finally, the interviewer may obtain more information about the interviewee in face-to-face encounters. By observing the respondent's non-verbal behaviours, the interviewer can evaluate his attitudes toward the questions, his answers, and even the interviewer himself-judgments not always possible with written responses. Thus the interview seems the most desirable means of gathering information; it maximizes immediacy and enhances the interviewer's abilities to obtain complete responses, to guide respondents' interpretations, to adapt to the situation, to control the situation, and to judge respondents' underlying feelings.