Looking at interviews - is my style right?

Upon reflection of the question and answers I have attained throughout the method of interview, I thought 'is this meeting my inquiry requirements?' I have managed to establish vast sources and a depth in information, but on looking at analysing the documentation I thought it key to once again refresh and understand the technique that I applied.
I began by looking back at what I had originally researched and defined in module 2, through the work of piloting. Here I discovered the intense qualitative information it provided, provoked by the question asked, of which I fully analysed in a post entitled 'Analysing my tools of professional inquiry...'. The relaxed situation allowed for side tracking and elaboration, a positive quality when contained within the session. I took onboard these criticisms and improved upon how I tackled interviews throughout the next section of my inquiry, but is this enough?
Before submitting and fully analysing the data I have sourced I found an article online detailing interview techniques, except this time from the perspective of a someone in the media, for example; a journalist or presenter. It highlighted the goals each interview situation aims to achieve:

1. 'Obtain the interviewee's knowledge about the topic'
2. 'Obtain the interviewee's opinion and/or feelings about the topic'
3. 'Feature the interviewee as the subject'

The first two bullet points is common practice within this technique as we have already established this knowledge in module 2, however it was the third that really got me thinking about how the media approach an interview situation. The article continued to highlight the importance of doing your 'homework', which in this case would be knowing the background to the person you are interviewing, as opposed to knowing the backgrounds of our own theories and inquiry purpose. With an interest in entering the media this was a fairly thought provoking point to me and left me thinking if I now conducted an interview with the same people knowing a little more about their background and them as people would my questions be different? Would the information I source be less or more valuable? However this 'people' technique is very much for the intent of a specialised interview when addressing a particular person in a particular situation to source particular information.

The article continued to offer advice on open ended questions which I also found of interest:

Closed-Ended Question                        Open-Ended Question

Do you get on well with your boss?  Tell me about your relationship with your boss.

Who will you vote for this election?         What do you think about the two candidates in this  

                                                                         election?

What colour shirt are you wearing?  That's an interesting coloured shirt you're wearing. 

I feel that the examples above clearly show the difference in how the approach to the question will influence the answers. Another situation where this can occur is in the ability to ask leading questions, however the result in asking these ineffectively can be more detrimental then just stopping the flow of the conversation:

How fast was the red car going when it smashed into the blue car? - This question implies that the red car was at fault, and the word "smashed" implies a high speed.

How fast was each car going when the accident happened? - This question does not assign any blame or pre-judgment.

These two examples show how the way in which a question is worded can create bias within the interview situation, an act of which we do not want intertwined within our data.

When engaging this information with the data I have already gathered I can see how I have ensured no bias influenced my results. The research I have captured is very much relevant to learning about the backgrounds of these people first hand, rather than researching their history first. Of course I had an understanding of who they were, but the idea of the information gathered from these interviews was to learn 'how to break into the industry?' which is exactly what I have learnt about these peoples journeys. The stories I have gathered range vastly, from working their way up to knowing someone within the company, however all wish to remain anonymous through protection of their jobs and to an extent mine. It is how I now analyse this data, with relevance to my hypothesis and my supportive literature reviews relating to already established theories and experiences.

Finally the the article finished by detailing 'interview tips' of which I also found very useful. I have posted the link below for you to take a look...

http://www.mediacollege.com/journalism/interviews/tips.html