In part because of the complexity
of the phenomena being studied as well as the tradition of qualitative research
in the area, the interview approach remains a major option for assessing
the Perry scheme, and arguably the richest source of data on intellectual
development. We recommend that interviews be used with a sub-sample on projects
using other Perry instruments, both for the richness of the quotes available
from such interviews and for ongoing validation efforts of less in-depth
assessment methods.
Perry and his colleagues used
a very open-ended interview approach in the initial study, but over the
years since then a variety of question formats have been tried, both unstructured
and structured. CSID has developed a standardized "Perry Interview" protocol combining
a set of standard questions with a variety of follow-up probes based, but
one big advantage of interviews is that they can be modified and supplemented
to fit the need of particular projects. For example, questions can be added
focusing on specific areas in addition to intellectual development--e.g.,
faith, diversity, disciplinary perspectives, etc.
The
difficulty with the interview approach is that it is expensive and time-consuming.
Interviews must be scored by trained raters, and the current cost of such
rating ranges from $25-$30 per interview protocol, depending on the length.
In most cases ratings are done from transcripts (transcription being the
other major cost issue with such a project), but we have also rated successfully
from videotaped interviews.