Abstract
In this chapter, we explain how qualitative interviews with citizens can be a valuable method for media policy research. We highlight a number of methodological principles, such as the importance of sensitizing concepts, sampling and saturation, as well as validity and reliability. We explain these principles in more depth by critically reflecting on the way in which they were applied in two interview studies among viewers of current affairs programs and French chefs, respectively. An important objective of this chapter is to not only point to the benefits of interview research, or how to conduct interviews, but to also draw awareness to possible pitfalls, problems of validity and generalizability. Particularly in situations in which interviews must serve as input for policy research and advice, it is important that the policy researcher is well aware of both the opportunities and the limitations of interview research. A challenge for researchers that wish to use the insights from interviews is, therefore, to find ways of translating the insights from interviews into the language and logic of law and policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Expert interviews—An introduction to a new methodological debate. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 1–13). Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Engel, C. (2008). The difficult reception of rigorous descriptive social science in the law. In N. Stehr & B. Weiler (Eds.), Who owns Knowledges? Knowledge and the law (p. 331). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Faigman, D. (1989). To have or to have not: Assessing the value of social science to the law as science and policy. Emory Law Journal, 38(4), 1005–1095.
Giesen, I. (2015). The use and incorporation of extralegal insights into legal reasoning. Utrecht Law Review, 11(1), 1–18.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Gorden, R. L. (1998). Basic interviewing skills. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Hagaman, A. K., & Wutich, A. (2017). How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study. Field Methods, 29(1), 23–41.
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2002). The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative Sociology, 25(4), 479–499.
Jensen, K. B., & Rosengren, K. E. (1990). Five traditions in search of the audience. European Journal of Communication, 5, 207–238.
Leeuw, F. L. (2016). Empirical legal research: A guidance book for lawyers, legislators and regulators. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lepsius, O. (2005). Sozialwissenschaften im Verfassungsrecht – Amerika als Vorbild? Juristenzeitung, 60(1), 1–13.
Lindlof, T. R. (1991). The qualitative study of media audiences. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35(1), 23–42.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2014). Communication research methods. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 590–601.
Robbennolt, J. K. (2002–2003). Evaluating empirical research methods: Using empirical research in law and policy. Nebraska Law Review, 81(2), 778.
Saldaňa, J. (2016). Chapter 1: An introduction to codes and coding & Chapter 2: Writing analytic memos about narrative and visual data. In The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles; London; and New Delhi: Sage.
Saunders, M. (2012). The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practice approach. Evaluation, 18(4), 421–436.
Smits, J. (2009). Redefining normative legal science: Towards an argumentative discipline. In F. Coomans, F. Grünfeld, & M. Kamminga (Eds.), Methods of human rights research (pp. 45–58). Antwerp; Oxford: Intersentia.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Van der Goot, M., Beentjes, J. W. J., & Van Selm, M. (2012). Meanings of television in older adults’ lives: An analysis of change and continuity in television viewing. Ageing & Society, 32, 147–169.
Wester, F., & Peters, V. (2000). Qualitative analysis: Phases, techniques and computer use. In C. J. Pole & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Cross cultural case study (pp. 139–164). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Further Reading
Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Leeuw, F. L. (2016). Empirical legal research: A guidance book for lawyers, legislators and regulators. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2014). Communication research methods. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Selm, M., Helberger, N. (2019). Talking to People II: Qualitative Interviews. In: Van den Bulck, H., Puppis, M., Donders, K., Van Audenhove, L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16064-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16065-4
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)