interview research instruments

Chapter 11. Interviewing

Introduction.

Interviewing people is at the heart of qualitative research. It is not merely a way to collect data but an intrinsically rewarding activity—an interaction between two people that holds the potential for greater understanding and interpersonal development. Unlike many of our daily interactions with others that are fairly shallow and mundane, sitting down with a person for an hour or two and really listening to what they have to say is a profound and deep enterprise, one that can provide not only “data” for you, the interviewer, but also self-understanding and a feeling of being heard for the interviewee. I always approach interviewing with a deep appreciation for the opportunity it gives me to understand how other people experience the world. That said, there is not one kind of interview but many, and some of these are shallower than others. This chapter will provide you with an overview of interview techniques but with a special focus on the in-depth semistructured interview guide approach, which is the approach most widely used in social science research.

An interview can be variously defined as “a conversation with a purpose” ( Lune and Berg 2018 ) and an attempt to understand the world from the point of view of the person being interviewed: “to unfold the meaning of peoples’ experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations” ( Kvale 2007 ). It is a form of active listening in which the interviewer steers the conversation to subjects and topics of interest to their research but also manages to leave enough space for those interviewed to say surprising things. Achieving that balance is a tricky thing, which is why most practitioners believe interviewing is both an art and a science. In my experience as a teacher, there are some students who are “natural” interviewers (often they are introverts), but anyone can learn to conduct interviews, and everyone, even those of us who have been doing this for years, can improve their interviewing skills. This might be a good time to highlight the fact that the interview is a product between interviewer and interviewee and that this product is only as good as the rapport established between the two participants. Active listening is the key to establishing this necessary rapport.

Patton ( 2002 ) makes the argument that we use interviews because there are certain things that are not observable. In particular, “we cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot observe behaviors that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of an observer. We cannot observe how people have organized the world and the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people questions about those things” ( 341 ).

Types of Interviews

There are several distinct types of interviews. Imagine a continuum (figure 11.1). On one side are unstructured conversations—the kind you have with your friends. No one is in control of those conversations, and what you talk about is often random—whatever pops into your head. There is no secret, underlying purpose to your talking—if anything, the purpose is to talk to and engage with each other, and the words you use and the things you talk about are a little beside the point. An unstructured interview is a little like this informal conversation, except that one of the parties to the conversation (you, the researcher) does have an underlying purpose, and that is to understand the other person. You are not friends speaking for no purpose, but it might feel just as unstructured to the “interviewee” in this scenario. That is one side of the continuum. On the other side are fully structured and standardized survey-type questions asked face-to-face. Here it is very clear who is asking the questions and who is answering them. This doesn’t feel like a conversation at all! A lot of people new to interviewing have this ( erroneously !) in mind when they think about interviews as data collection. Somewhere in the middle of these two extreme cases is the “ semistructured” interview , in which the researcher uses an “interview guide” to gently move the conversation to certain topics and issues. This is the primary form of interviewing for qualitative social scientists and will be what I refer to as interviewing for the rest of this chapter, unless otherwise specified.

Types of Interviewing Questions: Unstructured conversations, Semi-structured interview, Structured interview, Survey questions

Informal (unstructured conversations). This is the most “open-ended” approach to interviewing. It is particularly useful in conjunction with observational methods (see chapters 13 and 14). There are no predetermined questions. Each interview will be different. Imagine you are researching the Oregon Country Fair, an annual event in Veneta, Oregon, that includes live music, artisan craft booths, face painting, and a lot of people walking through forest paths. It’s unlikely that you will be able to get a person to sit down with you and talk intensely about a set of questions for an hour and a half. But you might be able to sidle up to several people and engage with them about their experiences at the fair. You might have a general interest in what attracts people to these events, so you could start a conversation by asking strangers why they are here or why they come back every year. That’s it. Then you have a conversation that may lead you anywhere. Maybe one person tells a long story about how their parents brought them here when they were a kid. A second person talks about how this is better than Burning Man. A third person shares their favorite traveling band. And yet another enthuses about the public library in the woods. During your conversations, you also talk about a lot of other things—the weather, the utilikilts for sale, the fact that a favorite food booth has disappeared. It’s all good. You may not be able to record these conversations. Instead, you might jot down notes on the spot and then, when you have the time, write down as much as you can remember about the conversations in long fieldnotes. Later, you will have to sit down with these fieldnotes and try to make sense of all the information (see chapters 18 and 19).

Interview guide ( semistructured interview ). This is the primary type employed by social science qualitative researchers. The researcher creates an “interview guide” in advance, which she uses in every interview. In theory, every person interviewed is asked the same questions. In practice, every person interviewed is asked mostly the same topics but not always the same questions, as the whole point of a “guide” is that it guides the direction of the conversation but does not command it. The guide is typically between five and ten questions or question areas, sometimes with suggested follow-ups or prompts . For example, one question might be “What was it like growing up in Eastern Oregon?” with prompts such as “Did you live in a rural area? What kind of high school did you attend?” to help the conversation develop. These interviews generally take place in a quiet place (not a busy walkway during a festival) and are recorded. The recordings are transcribed, and those transcriptions then become the “data” that is analyzed (see chapters 18 and 19). The conventional length of one of these types of interviews is between one hour and two hours, optimally ninety minutes. Less than one hour doesn’t allow for much development of questions and thoughts, and two hours (or more) is a lot of time to ask someone to sit still and answer questions. If you have a lot of ground to cover, and the person is willing, I highly recommend two separate interview sessions, with the second session being slightly shorter than the first (e.g., ninety minutes the first day, sixty minutes the second). There are lots of good reasons for this, but the most compelling one is that this allows you to listen to the first day’s recording and catch anything interesting you might have missed in the moment and so develop follow-up questions that can probe further. This also allows the person being interviewed to have some time to think about the issues raised in the interview and go a little deeper with their answers.

Standardized questionnaire with open responses ( structured interview ). This is the type of interview a lot of people have in mind when they hear “interview”: a researcher comes to your door with a clipboard and proceeds to ask you a series of questions. These questions are all the same whoever answers the door; they are “standardized.” Both the wording and the exact order are important, as people’s responses may vary depending on how and when a question is asked. These are qualitative only in that the questions allow for “open-ended responses”: people can say whatever they want rather than select from a predetermined menu of responses. For example, a survey I collaborated on included this open-ended response question: “How does class affect one’s career success in sociology?” Some of the answers were simply one word long (e.g., “debt”), and others were long statements with stories and personal anecdotes. It is possible to be surprised by the responses. Although it’s a stretch to call this kind of questioning a conversation, it does allow the person answering the question some degree of freedom in how they answer.

Survey questionnaire with closed responses (not an interview!). Standardized survey questions with specific answer options (e.g., closed responses) are not really interviews at all, and they do not generate qualitative data. For example, if we included five options for the question “How does class affect one’s career success in sociology?”—(1) debt, (2) social networks, (3) alienation, (4) family doesn’t understand, (5) type of grad program—we leave no room for surprises at all. Instead, we would most likely look at patterns around these responses, thinking quantitatively rather than qualitatively (e.g., using regression analysis techniques, we might find that working-class sociologists were twice as likely to bring up alienation). It can sometimes be confusing for new students because the very same survey can include both closed-ended and open-ended questions. The key is to think about how these will be analyzed and to what level surprises are possible. If your plan is to turn all responses into a number and make predictions about correlations and relationships, you are no longer conducting qualitative research. This is true even if you are conducting this survey face-to-face with a real live human. Closed-response questions are not conversations of any kind, purposeful or not.

In summary, the semistructured interview guide approach is the predominant form of interviewing for social science qualitative researchers because it allows a high degree of freedom of responses from those interviewed (thus allowing for novel discoveries) while still maintaining some connection to a research question area or topic of interest. The rest of the chapter assumes the employment of this form.

Creating an Interview Guide

Your interview guide is the instrument used to bridge your research question(s) and what the people you are interviewing want to tell you. Unlike a standardized questionnaire, the questions actually asked do not need to be exactly what you have written down in your guide. The guide is meant to create space for those you are interviewing to talk about the phenomenon of interest, but sometimes you are not even sure what that phenomenon is until you start asking questions. A priority in creating an interview guide is to ensure it offers space. One of the worst mistakes is to create questions that are so specific that the person answering them will not stray. Relatedly, questions that sound “academic” will shut down a lot of respondents. A good interview guide invites respondents to talk about what is important to them, not feel like they are performing or being evaluated by you.

Good interview questions should not sound like your “research question” at all. For example, let’s say your research question is “How do patriarchal assumptions influence men’s understanding of climate change and responses to climate change?” It would be worse than unhelpful to ask a respondent, “How do your assumptions about the role of men affect your understanding of climate change?” You need to unpack this into manageable nuggets that pull your respondent into the area of interest without leading him anywhere. You could start by asking him what he thinks about climate change in general. Or, even better, whether he has any concerns about heatwaves or increased tornadoes or polar icecaps melting. Once he starts talking about that, you can ask follow-up questions that bring in issues around gendered roles, perhaps asking if he is married (to a woman) and whether his wife shares his thoughts and, if not, how they negotiate that difference. The fact is, you won’t really know the right questions to ask until he starts talking.

There are several distinct types of questions that can be used in your interview guide, either as main questions or as follow-up probes. If you remember that the point is to leave space for the respondent, you will craft a much more effective interview guide! You will also want to think about the place of time in both the questions themselves (past, present, future orientations) and the sequencing of the questions.

Researcher Note

Suggestion : As you read the next three sections (types of questions, temporality, question sequence), have in mind a particular research question, and try to draft questions and sequence them in a way that opens space for a discussion that helps you answer your research question.

Type of Questions

Experience and behavior questions ask about what a respondent does regularly (their behavior) or has done (their experience). These are relatively easy questions for people to answer because they appear more “factual” and less subjective. This makes them good opening questions. For the study on climate change above, you might ask, “Have you ever experienced an unusual weather event? What happened?” Or “You said you work outside? What is a typical summer workday like for you? How do you protect yourself from the heat?”

Opinion and values questions , in contrast, ask questions that get inside the minds of those you are interviewing. “Do you think climate change is real? Who or what is responsible for it?” are two such questions. Note that you don’t have to literally ask, “What is your opinion of X?” but you can find a way to ask the specific question relevant to the conversation you are having. These questions are a bit trickier to ask because the answers you get may depend in part on how your respondent perceives you and whether they want to please you or not. We’ve talked a fair amount about being reflective. Here is another place where this comes into play. You need to be aware of the effect your presence might have on the answers you are receiving and adjust accordingly. If you are a woman who is perceived as liberal asking a man who identifies as conservative about climate change, there is a lot of subtext that can be going on in the interview. There is no one right way to resolve this, but you must at least be aware of it.

Feeling questions are questions that ask respondents to draw on their emotional responses. It’s pretty common for academic researchers to forget that we have bodies and emotions, but people’s understandings of the world often operate at this affective level, sometimes unconsciously or barely consciously. It is a good idea to include questions that leave space for respondents to remember, imagine, or relive emotional responses to particular phenomena. “What was it like when you heard your cousin’s house burned down in that wildfire?” doesn’t explicitly use any emotion words, but it allows your respondent to remember what was probably a pretty emotional day. And if they respond emotionally neutral, that is pretty interesting data too. Note that asking someone “How do you feel about X” is not always going to evoke an emotional response, as they might simply turn around and respond with “I think that…” It is better to craft a question that actually pushes the respondent into the affective category. This might be a specific follow-up to an experience and behavior question —for example, “You just told me about your daily routine during the summer heat. Do you worry it is going to get worse?” or “Have you ever been afraid it will be too hot to get your work accomplished?”

Knowledge questions ask respondents what they actually know about something factual. We have to be careful when we ask these types of questions so that respondents do not feel like we are evaluating them (which would shut them down), but, for example, it is helpful to know when you are having a conversation about climate change that your respondent does in fact know that unusual weather events have increased and that these have been attributed to climate change! Asking these questions can set the stage for deeper questions and can ensure that the conversation makes the same kind of sense to both participants. For example, a conversation about political polarization can be put back on track once you realize that the respondent doesn’t really have a clear understanding that there are two parties in the US. Instead of asking a series of questions about Republicans and Democrats, you might shift your questions to talk more generally about political disagreements (e.g., “people against abortion”). And sometimes what you do want to know is the level of knowledge about a particular program or event (e.g., “Are you aware you can discharge your student loans through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program?”).

Sensory questions call on all senses of the respondent to capture deeper responses. These are particularly helpful in sparking memory. “Think back to your childhood in Eastern Oregon. Describe the smells, the sounds…” Or you could use these questions to help a person access the full experience of a setting they customarily inhabit: “When you walk through the doors to your office building, what do you see? Hear? Smell?” As with feeling questions , these questions often supplement experience and behavior questions . They are another way of allowing your respondent to report fully and deeply rather than remain on the surface.

Creative questions employ illustrative examples, suggested scenarios, or simulations to get respondents to think more deeply about an issue, topic, or experience. There are many options here. In The Trouble with Passion , Erin Cech ( 2021 ) provides a scenario in which “Joe” is trying to decide whether to stay at his decent but boring computer job or follow his passion by opening a restaurant. She asks respondents, “What should Joe do?” Their answers illuminate the attraction of “passion” in job selection. In my own work, I have used a news story about an upwardly mobile young man who no longer has time to see his mother and sisters to probe respondents’ feelings about the costs of social mobility. Jessi Streib and Betsy Leondar-Wright have used single-page cartoon “scenes” to elicit evaluations of potential racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and classism. Barbara Sutton ( 2010 ) has employed lists of words (“strong,” “mother,” “victim”) on notecards she fans out and asks her female respondents to select and discuss.

Background/Demographic Questions

You most definitely will want to know more about the person you are interviewing in terms of conventional demographic information, such as age, race, gender identity, occupation, and educational attainment. These are not questions that normally open up inquiry. [1] For this reason, my practice has been to include a separate “demographic questionnaire” sheet that I ask each respondent to fill out at the conclusion of the interview. Only include those aspects that are relevant to your study. For example, if you are not exploring religion or religious affiliation, do not include questions about a person’s religion on the demographic sheet. See the example provided at the end of this chapter.

Temporality

Any type of question can have a past, present, or future orientation. For example, if you are asking a behavior question about workplace routine, you might ask the respondent to talk about past work, present work, and ideal (future) work. Similarly, if you want to understand how people cope with natural disasters, you might ask your respondent how they felt then during the wildfire and now in retrospect and whether and to what extent they have concerns for future wildfire disasters. It’s a relatively simple suggestion—don’t forget to ask about past, present, and future—but it can have a big impact on the quality of the responses you receive.

Question Sequence

Having a list of good questions or good question areas is not enough to make a good interview guide. You will want to pay attention to the order in which you ask your questions. Even though any one respondent can derail this order (perhaps by jumping to answer a question you haven’t yet asked), a good advance plan is always helpful. When thinking about sequence, remember that your goal is to get your respondent to open up to you and to say things that might surprise you. To establish rapport, it is best to start with nonthreatening questions. Asking about the present is often the safest place to begin, followed by the past (they have to know you a little bit to get there), and lastly, the future (talking about hopes and fears requires the most rapport). To allow for surprises, it is best to move from very general questions to more particular questions only later in the interview. This ensures that respondents have the freedom to bring up the topics that are relevant to them rather than feel like they are constrained to answer you narrowly. For example, refrain from asking about particular emotions until these have come up previously—don’t lead with them. Often, your more particular questions will emerge only during the course of the interview, tailored to what is emerging in conversation.

Once you have a set of questions, read through them aloud and imagine you are being asked the same questions. Does the set of questions have a natural flow? Would you be willing to answer the very first question to a total stranger? Does your sequence establish facts and experiences before moving on to opinions and values? Did you include prefatory statements, where necessary; transitions; and other announcements? These can be as simple as “Hey, we talked a lot about your experiences as a barista while in college.… Now I am turning to something completely different: how you managed friendships in college.” That is an abrupt transition, but it has been softened by your acknowledgment of that.

Probes and Flexibility

Once you have the interview guide, you will also want to leave room for probes and follow-up questions. As in the sample probe included here, you can write out the obvious probes and follow-up questions in advance. You might not need them, as your respondent might anticipate them and include full responses to the original question. Or you might need to tailor them to how your respondent answered the question. Some common probes and follow-up questions include asking for more details (When did that happen? Who else was there?), asking for elaboration (Could you say more about that?), asking for clarification (Does that mean what I think it means or something else? I understand what you mean, but someone else reading the transcript might not), and asking for contrast or comparison (How did this experience compare with last year’s event?). “Probing is a skill that comes from knowing what to look for in the interview, listening carefully to what is being said and what is not said, and being sensitive to the feedback needs of the person being interviewed” ( Patton 2002:374 ). It takes work! And energy. I and many other interviewers I know report feeling emotionally and even physically drained after conducting an interview. You are tasked with active listening and rearranging your interview guide as needed on the fly. If you only ask the questions written down in your interview guide with no deviations, you are doing it wrong. [2]

The Final Question

Every interview guide should include a very open-ended final question that allows for the respondent to say whatever it is they have been dying to tell you but you’ve forgotten to ask. About half the time they are tired too and will tell you they have nothing else to say. But incredibly, some of the most honest and complete responses take place here, at the end of a long interview. You have to realize that the person being interviewed is often discovering things about themselves as they talk to you and that this process of discovery can lead to new insights for them. Making space at the end is therefore crucial. Be sure you convey that you actually do want them to tell you more, that the offer of “anything else?” is not read as an empty convention where the polite response is no. Here is where you can pull from that active listening and tailor the final question to the particular person. For example, “I’ve asked you a lot of questions about what it was like to live through that wildfire. I’m wondering if there is anything I’ve forgotten to ask, especially because I haven’t had that experience myself” is a much more inviting final question than “Great. Anything you want to add?” It’s also helpful to convey to the person that you have the time to listen to their full answer, even if the allotted time is at the end. After all, there are no more questions to ask, so the respondent knows exactly how much time is left. Do them the courtesy of listening to them!

Conducting the Interview

Once you have your interview guide, you are on your way to conducting your first interview. I always practice my interview guide with a friend or family member. I do this even when the questions don’t make perfect sense for them, as it still helps me realize which questions make no sense, are poorly worded (too academic), or don’t follow sequentially. I also practice the routine I will use for interviewing, which goes something like this:

Introduce myself and reintroduce the study
Provide consent form and ask them to sign and retain/return copy
Ask if they have any questions about the study before we begin
Ask if I can begin recording
Ask questions (from interview guide)
Turn off the recording device
Ask if they are willing to fill out my demographic questionnaire
Collect questionnaire and, without looking at the answers, place in same folder as signed consent form
Thank them and depart

A note on remote interviewing: Interviews have traditionally been conducted face-to-face in a private or quiet public setting. You don’t want a lot of background noise, as this will make transcriptions difficult. During the recent global pandemic, many interviewers, myself included, learned the benefits of interviewing remotely. Although face-to-face is still preferable for many reasons, Zoom interviewing is not a bad alternative, and it does allow more interviews across great distances. Zoom also includes automatic transcription, which significantly cuts down on the time it normally takes to convert our conversations into “data” to be analyzed. These automatic transcriptions are not perfect, however, and you will still need to listen to the recording and clarify and clean up the transcription. Nor do automatic transcriptions include notations of body language or change of tone, which you may want to include. When interviewing remotely, you will want to collect the consent form before you meet: ask them to read, sign, and return it as an email attachment. I think it is better to ask for the demographic questionnaire after the interview, but because some respondents may never return it then, it is probably best to ask for this at the same time as the consent form, in advance of the interview.

What should you bring to the interview? I would recommend bringing two copies of the consent form (one for you and one for the respondent), a demographic questionnaire, a manila folder in which to place the signed consent form and filled-out demographic questionnaire, a printed copy of your interview guide (I print with three-inch right margins so I can jot down notes on the page next to relevant questions), a pen, a recording device, and water.

After the interview, you will want to secure the signed consent form in a locked filing cabinet (if in print) or a password-protected folder on your computer. Using Excel or a similar program that allows tables/spreadsheets, create an identifying number for your interview that links to the consent form without using the name of your respondent. For example, let’s say that I conduct interviews with US politicians, and the first person I meet with is George W. Bush. I will assign the transcription the number “INT#001” and add it to the signed consent form. [3] The signed consent form goes into a locked filing cabinet, and I never use the name “George W. Bush” again. I take the information from the demographic sheet, open my Excel spreadsheet, and add the relevant information in separate columns for the row INT#001: White, male, Republican. When I interview Bill Clinton as my second interview, I include a second row: INT#002: White, male, Democrat. And so on. The only link to the actual name of the respondent and this information is the fact that the consent form (unavailable to anyone but me) has stamped on it the interview number.

Many students get very nervous before their first interview. Actually, many of us are always nervous before the interview! But do not worry—this is normal, and it does pass. Chances are, you will be pleasantly surprised at how comfortable it begins to feel. These “purposeful conversations” are often a delight for both participants. This is not to say that sometimes things go wrong. I often have my students practice several “bad scenarios” (e.g., a respondent that you cannot get to open up; a respondent who is too talkative and dominates the conversation, steering it away from the topics you are interested in; emotions that completely take over; or shocking disclosures you are ill-prepared to handle), but most of the time, things go quite well. Be prepared for the unexpected, but know that the reason interviews are so popular as a technique of data collection is that they are usually richly rewarding for both participants.

One thing that I stress to my methods students and remind myself about is that interviews are still conversations between people. If there’s something you might feel uncomfortable asking someone about in a “normal” conversation, you will likely also feel a bit of discomfort asking it in an interview. Maybe more importantly, your respondent may feel uncomfortable. Social research—especially about inequality—can be uncomfortable. And it’s easy to slip into an abstract, intellectualized, or removed perspective as an interviewer. This is one reason trying out interview questions is important. Another is that sometimes the question sounds good in your head but doesn’t work as well out loud in practice. I learned this the hard way when a respondent asked me how I would answer the question I had just posed, and I realized that not only did I not really know how I would answer it, but I also wasn’t quite as sure I knew what I was asking as I had thought.

—Elizabeth M. Lee, Associate Professor of Sociology at Saint Joseph’s University, author of Class and Campus Life , and co-author of Geographies of Campus Inequality

How Many Interviews?

Your research design has included a targeted number of interviews and a recruitment plan (see chapter 5). Follow your plan, but remember that “ saturation ” is your goal. You interview as many people as you can until you reach a point at which you are no longer surprised by what they tell you. This means not that no one after your first twenty interviews will have surprising, interesting stories to tell you but rather that the picture you are forming about the phenomenon of interest to you from a research perspective has come into focus, and none of the interviews are substantially refocusing that picture. That is when you should stop collecting interviews. Note that to know when you have reached this, you will need to read your transcripts as you go. More about this in chapters 18 and 19.

Your Final Product: The Ideal Interview Transcript

A good interview transcript will demonstrate a subtly controlled conversation by the skillful interviewer. In general, you want to see replies that are about one paragraph long, not short sentences and not running on for several pages. Although it is sometimes necessary to follow respondents down tangents, it is also often necessary to pull them back to the questions that form the basis of your research study. This is not really a free conversation, although it may feel like that to the person you are interviewing.

Final Tips from an Interview Master

Annette Lareau is arguably one of the masters of the trade. In Listening to People , she provides several guidelines for good interviews and then offers a detailed example of an interview gone wrong and how it could be addressed (please see the “Further Readings” at the end of this chapter). Here is an abbreviated version of her set of guidelines: (1) interview respondents who are experts on the subjects of most interest to you (as a corollary, don’t ask people about things they don’t know); (2) listen carefully and talk as little as possible; (3) keep in mind what you want to know and why you want to know it; (4) be a proactive interviewer (subtly guide the conversation); (5) assure respondents that there aren’t any right or wrong answers; (6) use the respondent’s own words to probe further (this both allows you to accurately identify what you heard and pushes the respondent to explain further); (7) reuse effective probes (don’t reinvent the wheel as you go—if repeating the words back works, do it again and again); (8) focus on learning the subjective meanings that events or experiences have for a respondent; (9) don’t be afraid to ask a question that draws on your own knowledge (unlike trial lawyers who are trained never to ask a question for which they don’t already know the answer, sometimes it’s worth it to ask risky questions based on your hypotheses or just plain hunches); (10) keep thinking while you are listening (so difficult…and important); (11) return to a theme raised by a respondent if you want further information; (12) be mindful of power inequalities (and never ever coerce a respondent to continue the interview if they want out); (13) take control with overly talkative respondents; (14) expect overly succinct responses, and develop strategies for probing further; (15) balance digging deep and moving on; (16) develop a plan to deflect questions (e.g., let them know you are happy to answer any questions at the end of the interview, but you don’t want to take time away from them now); and at the end, (17) check to see whether you have asked all your questions. You don’t always have to ask everyone the same set of questions, but if there is a big area you have forgotten to cover, now is the time to recover ( Lareau 2021:93–103 ).

Sample: Demographic Questionnaire

ASA Taskforce on First-Generation and Working-Class Persons in Sociology – Class Effects on Career Success

Supplementary Demographic Questionnaire

Thank you for your participation in this interview project. We would like to collect a few pieces of key demographic information from you to supplement our analyses. Your answers to these questions will be kept confidential and stored by ID number. All of your responses here are entirely voluntary!

What best captures your race/ethnicity? (please check any/all that apply)

White (Non Hispanic/Latina/o/x)
Black or African American
Hispanic, Latino/a/x of Spanish
Asian or Asian American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Middle Eastern or North African
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other : (Please write in: ________________)

What is your current position?

Grad Student
Full Professor

Please check any and all of the following that apply to you:

I identify as a working-class academic
I was the first in my family to graduate from college
I grew up poor

What best reflects your gender?

Transgender female/Transgender woman
Transgender male/Transgender man
Gender queer/ Gender nonconforming

Anything else you would like us to know about you?

Example: Interview Guide

In this example, follow-up prompts are italicized. Note the sequence of questions. That second question often elicits an entire life history , answering several later questions in advance.

Introduction Script/Question

Thank you for participating in our survey of ASA members who identify as first-generation or working-class. As you may have heard, ASA has sponsored a taskforce on first-generation and working-class persons in sociology and we are interested in hearing from those who so identify. Your participation in this interview will help advance our knowledge in this area.

The first thing we would like to as you is why you have volunteered to be part of this study? What does it mean to you be first-gen or working class? Why were you willing to be interviewed?
How did you decide to become a sociologist?
Can you tell me a little bit about where you grew up? ( prompts: what did your parent(s) do for a living? What kind of high school did you attend?)
Has this identity been salient to your experience? (how? How much?)
How welcoming was your grad program? Your first academic employer?
Why did you decide to pursue sociology at the graduate level?
Did you experience culture shock in college? In graduate school?
Has your FGWC status shaped how you’ve thought about where you went to school? debt? etc?
Were you mentored? How did this work (not work)? How might it?
What did you consider when deciding where to go to grad school? Where to apply for your first position?
What, to you, is a mark of career success? Have you achieved that success? What has helped or hindered your pursuit of success?
Do you think sociology, as a field, cares about prestige?
Let’s talk a little bit about intersectionality. How does being first-gen/working class work alongside other identities that are important to you?
What do your friends and family think about your career? Have you had any difficulty relating to family members or past friends since becoming highly educated?
Do you have any debt from college/grad school? Are you concerned about this? Could you explain more about how you paid for college/grad school? (here, include assistance from family, fellowships, scholarships, etc.)
(You’ve mentioned issues or obstacles you had because of your background.) What could have helped? Or, who or what did? Can you think of fortuitous moments in your career?
Do you have any regrets about the path you took?
Is there anything else you would like to add? Anything that the Taskforce should take note of, that we did not ask you about here?

Chapter 13: Interviews

Danielle Berkovic

Learning outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

Understand when to use interviews in qualitative research.
Develop interview questions for an interview guide.
Understand how to conduct an interview.

What are interviews?

An interviewing method is the most commonly used data collection technique in qualitative research. 1 The purpose of an interview is to explore the experiences, understandings, opinions and motivations of research participants. 2 Interviews are conducted one-on-one with the researcher and the participant. Interviews are most appropriate when seeking to understand a participant’s subjective view of an experience and are also considered suitable for the exploration of sensitive topics.

What are the different types of interviews?

There are four main types of interviews:

Key stakeholder: A key stakeholder interview aims to explore one issue in detail with a person of interest or importance concerning the research topic. 3 Key stakeholder interviews seek the views of experts on some cultural, political or health aspects of the community, beyond their personal beliefs or actions. An example of a key stakeholder is the Chief Health Officer of Victoria (Australia’s second-most populous state) who oversaw the world’s longest lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dyad: A dyad interview aims to explore one issue in a level of detail with a dyad (two people). This form of interviewing is used when one participant of the dyad may need some support or is not wholly able to articulate themselves (e.g. people with cognitive impairment, or children). Independence is acknowledged and the interview is analysed as a unit. 4
Narrative: A narrative interview helps individuals tell their stories, and prioritises their own perspectives and experiences using the language that they prefer. 5 This type of interview has been widely used in social research but is gaining prominence in health research to better understand person-centred care, for example, negotiating exercise and food abstinence whilst living with Type 2 diabetes. 6,7
Life history: A life history interview allows the researcher to explore a person’s individual and subjective experiences within a history of the time framework. 8 Life history interviews challenge the researcher to understand how people’s current attitudes, behaviours and choices are influenced by previous experiences or trauma. Life history interviews have been conducted with Holocaust survivors 9 and youth who have been forcibly recruited to war. 10

Table 13.4 provides a summary of four studies, each adopting one of these types of interviews.

Interviewing techniques

There are two main interview techniques:

Semi-structured: Semi-structured interviewing aims to explore a few issues in moderate detail, to expand the researcher’s knowledge at some level. 11 Semi-structured interviews give the researcher the advantage of remaining reasonably objective while enabling participants to share their perspectives and opinions. The researcher should create an interview guide with targeted open questions to direct the interview. As examples, semi-structured interviews have been used to extend knowledge of why women might gain excess weight during pregnancy, 12 and to update guidelines for statin uptake. 13
In-depth: In-depth interviewing aims to explore a person’s subjective experiences and feelings about a particular topic. 14 In-depth interviews are often used to explore emotive (e.g. end-of-life care) 15 and complex (e.g. adolescent pregnancy) topics. 16 The researcher should create an interview guide with selected open questions to ask of the participant, but the participant should guide the direction of the interview more than in a semi-structured setting. In-depth interviews value participants’ lived experiences and are frequently used in phenomenology studies (as described in Chapter 6) .

When to use the different types of interview s

The type of interview a researcher uses should be determined by the study design, the research aims and objectives, and participant demographics. For example, if conducting a descriptive study, semi-structured interviews may be the best method of data collection. As explained in Chapter 5 , descriptive studies seek to describe phenomena, rather than to explain or interpret the data. A semi-structured interview, which seeks to expand upon some level of existing knowledge, will likely best facilitate this.

Similarly, if conducting a phenomenological study, in-depth interviews may be the best method of data collection. As described in Chapter 6 , the key concept of phenomenology is the individual. The emphasis is on the lived experience of that individual and the person’s sense-making of those experiences. Therefore, an in-depth interview is likely best placed to elicit that rich data.

While some interview types are better suited to certain study designs, there are no restrictions on the type of interview that may be used. For example, semi-structured interviews provide an excellent accompaniment to trial participation (see Chapter 11 about mixed methods), and key stakeholder interviews, as part of an action research study, can be used to define priorities, barriers and enablers to implementation.

How do I write my interview questions?

An interview aims to explore the experiences, understandings, opinions and motivations of research participants. The general rule is that the interviewee should speak for 80 per cent of the interview, and the interviewer should only be asking questions and clarifying responses, for about 20 per cent of the interview. This percentage may differ depending on the interview type; for example, a semi-structured interview involves the researcher asking more questions than in an in-depth interview. Still, to facilitate free-flowing responses, it is important to use open-ended language to encourage participants to be expansive in their responses. Examples of open-ended terms include questions that start with ‘who’, ‘how’ and ‘where’.

The researcher should avoid closed-ended questions that can be answered with yes or no, and limit conversation. For example, asking a participant ‘Did you have this experience?’ can elicit a simple ‘yes’, whereas asking them to ‘Describe your experience’, will likely encourage a narrative response. Table 13.1 provides examples of terminology to include and avoid in developing interview questions.

Table 13.1. Interview question formats to use and avoid

How long should my interview be.

There is no rule about how long an interview should take. Different types of interviews will likely run for different periods of time, but this also depends on the research question/s and the type of participant. For example, given that a semi-structured interview is seeking to expand on some previous knowledge, the interview may need no longer than 30 minutes, or up to one hour. An in-depth interview seeks to explore a topic in a greater level of detail and therefore, at a minimum, would be expected to last an hour. A dyad interview may be as short as 15 minutes (e.g. if the dyad is a person with dementia and a family member or caregiver) or longer, depending on the pairing.

Designing your interview guide

To figure out what questions to ask in an interview guide, the researcher may consult the literature, speak to experts (including people with lived experience) about the research and draw on their current knowledge. The topics and questions should be mapped to the research question/s, and the interview guide should be developed well in advance of commencing data collection. This enables time and opportunity to pilot-test the interview guide. The pilot interview provides an opportunity to explore the language and clarity of questions, the order and flow of the guide and to determine whether the instructions are clear to participants both before and after the interview. It can be beneficial to pilot-test the interview guide with someone who is not familiar with the research topic, to make sure that the language used is easily understood (and will be by participants, too). The study design should be used to determine the number of questions asked and the duration of the interview should guide the extent of the interview guide. The participant type may also determine the extent of the interview guide; for example, clinicians tend to be time-poor and therefore shorter, focused interviews are optimal. An interview guide is also likely to be shorter for a descriptive study than a phenomenological or ethnographic study, given the level of detail required. Chapter 5 outlined a descriptive study in which participants who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention were interviewed. The interview guide consisted of four main questions and subsequent probing questions, linked to the research questions (see Table 13.2). 17

Table 13.2. Interview guide for a descriptive study

Table 13.3 is an example of a larger and more detailed interview guide, designed for the qualitative component of a mixed-methods study aiming to examine the work and financial effects of living with arthritis as a younger person. The questions are mapped to the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, which measures health and disability at individual and population levels. 18

Table 13.3. Detailed interview guide

It is important to create an interview guide, for the following reasons:

The researcher should be familiar with their research questions.
Using an interview guide will enable the incorporation of feedback from the piloting process.
It is difficult to predict how participants will respond to interview questions. They may answer in a way that is anticipated or they may provide unanticipated insights that warrant follow-up. An interview guide (a physical or digital copy) enables the researcher to note these answers and follow-up with appropriate inquiry.
Participants will likely have provided heterogeneous answers to certain questions. The interview guide enables the researcher to note similarities and differences across various interviews, which may be important in data analysis.
Even experienced qualitative researchers get nervous before an interview! The interview guide provides a safety net if the researcher forgets their questions or needs to anticipate the next question.

Setting up the interview

In the past, most interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. Emerging technologies promote easier access to research participation (e.g. by people living in rural or remote communities, or for people with mobility limitations). Even in metropolitan settings, many interviews are now conducted electronically (e.g. using videoconferencing platforms). Regardless of your interview setting, it is essential that the interview environment is comfortable for the participant. This process can begin as soon as potential participants express interest in your research. Following are some tips from the literature and our own experiences of leading interviews:

Answer questions and set clear expectations . Participating in research is not an everyday task. People do not necessarily know what to expect during a research interview, and this can be daunting. Give people as much information as possible, answer their questions about the research and set clear expectations about what the interview will entail and how long it is expected to last. Let them know that the interview will be recorded for transcription and analysis purposes. Consider sending the interview questions a few days before the interview. This gives people time and space to reflect on their experiences, consider their responses to questions and to provide informed consent for their participation.
Consider your setting . If conducting the interview in person, consider the location and room in which the interview will be held. For example, if in a participant’s home, be mindful of their private space. Ask if you should remove your shoes before entering their home. If they offer refreshments (which in our experience many participants do), accept it with gratitude if possible. These considerations apply beyond the participant’s home; if using a room in an office setting, consider privacy and confidentiality, accessibility and potential for disruption. Consider the temperature as well as the furniture in the room, who may be able to overhear conversations and who may walk past. Similarly, if interviewing by phone or online, take time to assess the space, and if in a house or office that is not quiet or private, use headphones as needed.
Build rapport. The research topic may be important to participants from a professional perspective, or they may have deep emotional connections to the topic of interest. Regardless of the nature of the interview, it is important to remember that participants are being asked to open up to an interviewer who is likely to be a stranger. Spend some time with participants before the interview, to make sure that they are comfortable. Engage in some general conversation, and ask if they have any questions before you start. Remember that it is not a normal part of someone’s day to participate in research. Make it an enjoyable and/or meaningful experience for them, and it will enhance the data that you collect.
Let participants guide you. Oftentimes, the ways in which researchers and participants describe the same phenomena are different. In the interview, reflect the participant’s language. Make sure they feel heard and that they are willing and comfortable to speak openly about their experiences. For example, our research involves talking to older adults about their experience of falls. We noticed early in this research that participants did not use the word ‘fall’ but would rather use terms such as ‘trip’, ‘went over’ and ‘stumbled’. As interviewers we adopted the participant’s language into our questions.
Listen consistently and express interest. An interview is more complex than a simple question-and-answer format. The best interview data comes from participants feeling comfortable and confident to share their stories. By the time you are completing the 20th interview, it can be difficult to maintain the same level of concentration as with the first interview. Try to stay engaged: nod along with your participants, maintain eye contact, murmur in agreement and sympathise where warranted.
The interviewer is both the data collector and the data collection instrument. The data received is only as good as the questions asked. In qualitative research, the researcher influences how participants answer questions. It is important to remain reflexive and aware of how your language, body language and attitude might influence the interview. Being rested and prepared will enhance the quality of the questions asked and hence the data collected.
Avoid excessive use of ‘why’. It can be challenging for participants to recall why they felt a certain way or acted in a particular manner. Try to avoid asking ‘why’ questions too often, and instead adopt some of the open language described earlier in the chapter.

After your interview

When you have completed your interview, thank the participant and let them know they can contact you if they have any questions or follow-up information they would like to provide. If the interview has covered sensitive topics or the participant has become distressed throughout the interview, make sure that appropriate referrals and follow-up are provided (see section 6).

Download the recording from your device and make sure it is saved in a secure location that can only be accessed by people on the approved research team (see Chapters 35 and 36).

It is important to know what to do immediately after each interview is completed. Interviews should be transcribed – that is, reproduced verbatim for data analysis. Transcribing data is an important step in the process of analysis, but it is very time-consuming; transcribing a 60-minute interview can take up to 8 hours. Data analysis is discussed in Section 4.

Table 13.4. Examples of the four types of interviews

Interviews are the most common data collection technique in qualitative research. There are four main types of interviews; the one you choose will depend on your research question, aims and objectives. It is important to formulate open-ended interview questions that are understandable and easy for participants to answer. Key considerations in setting up the interview will enhance the quality of the data obtained and the experience of the interview for the participant and the researcher.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J . 2008;204(6):291-295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192
DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health . 2019;7(2):e000057. doi:10.1136/fmch-2018-000057
Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Porcher R, Hren D. Key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study. BMJ Open . 2020;10(11):e039932. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039932
Morgan DL, Ataie J, Carder P, Hoffman K. Introducing dyadic interviews as a method for collecting qualitative data. Qual Health Res . 2013;23(9):1276-84. doi:10.1177/1049732313501889
Picchi S, Bonapitacola C, Borghi E, et al. The narrative interview in therapeutic education. The diabetic patients’ point of view. Acta Biomed . Jul 18 2018;89(6-S):43-50. doi:10.23750/abm.v89i6-S.7488
Stuij M, Elling A, Abma T. Negotiating exercise as medicine: Narratives from people with type 2 diabetes. Health (London) . 2021;25(1):86-102. doi:10.1177/1363459319851545
Buchmann M, Wermeling M, Lucius-Hoene G, Himmel W. Experiences of food abstinence in patients with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study. BMJ Open . 2016;6(1):e008907. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008907
Jessee E. The Life History Interview. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . 2018:1-17:Chapter 80-1.
Sheftel A, Zembrzycki S. Only Human: A Reflection on the Ethical and Methodological Challenges of Working with “Difficult” Stories. The Oral History Review . 2019;37(2):191-214. doi:10.1093/ohr/ohq050
Harnisch H, Montgomery E. “What kept me going”: A qualitative study of avoidant responses to war-related adversity and perpetration of violence by former forcibly recruited children and youth in the Acholi region of northern Uganda. Soc Sci Med . 2017;188:100-108. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.007
Ruslin., Mashuri S, Rasak MSA, Alhabsyi M, Alhabsyi F, Syam H. Semi-structured Interview: A Methodological Reflection on the Development of a Qualitative Research Instrument in Educational Studies. IOSR-JRME . 2022;12(1):22-29. doi:10.9790/7388-1201052229
Chang T, Llanes M, Gold KJ, Fetters MD. Perspectives about and approaches to weight gain in pregnancy: a qualitative study of physicians and nurse midwives. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth . 2013;13(47)doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-47
DeJonckheere M, Robinson CH, Evans L, et al. Designing for Clinical Change: Creating an Intervention to Implement New Statin Guidelines in a Primary Care Clinic. JMIR Hum Factors . 2018;5(2):e19. doi:10.2196/humanfactors.9030
Knott E, Rao AH, Summers K, Teeger C. Interviews in the social sciences. Nature Reviews Methods Primers . 2022;2(1)doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6
Bergenholtz H, Missel M, Timm H. Talking about death and dying in a hospital setting – a qualitative study of the wishes for end-of-life conversations from the perspective of patients and spouses. BMC Palliat Care . 2020;19(1):168. doi:10.1186/s12904-020-00675-1
Olorunsaiye CZ, Degge HM, Ubanyi TO, Achema TA, Yaya S. “It’s like being involved in a car crash”: teen pregnancy narratives of adolescents and young adults in Jos, Nigeria. Int Health . 2022;14(6):562-571. doi:10.1093/inthealth/ihab069
Ayton DR, Barker AL, Peeters G, et al. Exploring patient-reported outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention: A qualitative study. Health Expect . 2018;21(2):457-465. doi:10.1111/hex.12636
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health#:~:text=ICF%20is%20the%20WHO%20framework,and%20measure%20health%20and%20disability.
Cuthbertson J, Rodriguez-Llanes JM, Robertson A, Archer F. Current and Emerging Disaster Risks Perceptions in Oceania: Key Stakeholders Recommendations for Disaster Management and Resilience Building. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2019;16(3)doi:10.3390/ijerph16030460
Bannon SM, Grunberg VA, Reichman M, et al. Thematic Analysis of Dyadic Coping in Couples With Young-Onset Dementia. JAMA Netw Open . 2021;4(4):e216111. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6111
McGranahan R, Jakaite Z, Edwards A, Rennick-Egglestone S, Slade M, Priebe S. Living with Psychosis without Mental Health Services: A Narrative Interview Study. BMJ Open . 2021;11(7):e045661. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045661
Gutiérrez-García AI, Solano-Ruíz C, Siles-González J, Perpiñá-Galvañ J. Life Histories and Lifelines: A Methodological Symbiosis for the Study of Female Genital Mutilation. Int J Qual Methods . 2021;20doi:10.1177/16094069211040969

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Danielle Berkovic is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

University Libraries
Research Guides
Topic Guides
Research Methods Guide
Interview Research

Research Methods Guide: Interview Research

Introduction
Research Design & Method
Survey Research
Data Analysis
Resources & Consultation

Tutorial Videos: Interview Method

Interview as a Method for Qualitative Research

Goals of Interview Research

Preferences
They help you explain, better understand, and explore research subjects' opinions, behavior, experiences, phenomenon, etc.
Interview questions are usually open-ended questions so that in-depth information will be collected.

Mode of Data Collection

There are several types of interviews, including:

Face-to-Face
Online (e.g. Skype, Googlehangout, etc)

FAQ: Conducting Interview Research

What are the important steps involved in interviews?

Think about who you will interview
Think about what kind of information you want to obtain from interviews
Think about why you want to pursue in-depth information around your research topic
Introduce yourself and explain the aim of the interview
Devise your questions so interviewees can help answer your research question
Have a sequence to your questions / topics by grouping them in themes
Make sure you can easily move back and forth between questions / topics
Make sure your questions are clear and easy to understand
Do not ask leading questions
Do you want to bring a second interviewer with you?
Do you want to bring a notetaker?
Do you want to record interviews? If so, do you have time to transcribe interview recordings?
Where will you interview people? Where is the setting with the least distraction?
How long will each interview take?
Do you need to address terms of confidentiality?

Do I have to choose either a survey or interviewing method?

No. In fact, many researchers use a mixed method - interviews can be useful as follow-up to certain respondents to surveys, e.g., to further investigate their responses.

Is training an interviewer important?

Yes, since the interviewer can control the quality of the result, training the interviewer becomes crucial. If more than one interviewers are involved in your study, it is important to have every interviewer understand the interviewing procedure and rehearse the interviewing process before beginning the formal study.

<< Previous: Survey Research
Next: Data Analysis >>
Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 10:42 AM

Research Methodologies: Research Instruments

Research Methodology Basics
Research Instruments
Types of Research Methodologies

Header Image

Types of Research Instruments

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research. The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology.

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research:

Interviews (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
Surveys (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
Focus Groups. Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
Observations. This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take. It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

Data Collection

How to Collect Data for Your Research This article covers different ways of collecting data in preparation for writing a thesis.

<< Previous: Research Methodology Basics
Next: Types of Research Methodologies >>
Last Updated: Sep 27, 2022 12:28 PM
URL: https://paperpile.libguides.com/research-methodologies

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer
QuestionPro

Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Types of Interviews in Research and Methods

There are more types of interviews than most people think. An interview is generally a qualitative research technique that involves asking open-ended questions to converse with respondents and collect elicit data about a subject.

The interviewer, in most cases, is the subject matter expert who intends to understand respondent opinions in a well-planned and executed series of star questions and answers .

Interviews are similar to focus groups and surveys for garnering information from the target market but are entirely different in their operation – focus groups are restricted to a small group of 6-10 individuals, whereas surveys are quantitative.

Interviews are conducted with a sample from a population, and the key characteristic they exhibit is their conversational tone.

LEARN ABOUT: telephone survey

Content Index

What is An Interview?

Fundamental types of interviews in research, other types of interviews.

Methods of Research Interviews

What to Avoid in Different Types of Interviews

Interview-Related Questions

An interview is a way to get information from a person by asking questions and hearing their answers.

An interview is a question-and-answer session where one person asks questions, and the other person answers those questions. It can be a one-on-one, two-way conversation, or there can be more than one interviewer and more than one participant.

The interview is the most important part of the whole selection bias process. It is used to decide if a person should be interviewed further, hired, or taken out of consideration. It is the main way to learn more about applicants and the basis for judging their job-related knowledge, research skills , and abilities.

A researcher has to conduct interviews with a group of participants at a juncture in the research where information can only be obtained by meeting and personally connecting with a section of their target audience. Interviews offer the researchers a platform to prompt their participants and obtain inputs in the desired detail. There are three fundamental types of interviews in research:

1. Structured Interviews:

Structured interviews are defined as research tools that could be more flexible in their operations are allow more or no scope of prompting the participants to obtain and analyze results. It is thus also known as a standardized interview and is significantly quantitative in its approach.

Questions in this interview are pre-decided according to the required detail of information. This can be used in a focus group interview and an in-person interview.

These interviews are excessively used in survey research with the intention of maintaining uniformity throughout all the interview sessions.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

They can be closed-ended and open-ended – according to the type of target population. Closed-ended questions can be included to understand user preferences from a collection of answer options. In contrast, open-ended ones can be included to gain details about a particular section in the interview.

Example of a structured interview question:

Here’s an example of a structured question for a job interview for a customer service job:

Can you talk about what it was like to work in customer service?
How do you deal with an angry or upset customer?
How do you ensure that the information you give customers is correct?
Tell us about when you went out of your way to help a customer.
How do you handle a lot of customers or tasks at once?
Can you talk about how you’ve used software or tools for customer service?
How do you set priorities and use your time well while giving good customer service?
Can you tell us about when you had to get a customer to calm down?
How do you deal with a customer who wants something that goes against your company’s rules?
Tell me about a time when you had to deal with a hard customer or coworker.

Advantages of structured interviews:

It focuses on the accuracy of different responses, due to which extremely organized data can be collected. Different respondents have different types of answers to the same structure of questions – answers obtained can be collectively analyzed.
They can be used to get in touch with a large sample of the target population.
The interview procedure is made easy due to the standardization offered by it.
Replication across multiple samples becomes easy due to the same structure of the interview.
As the scope of detail is already considered while designing the interview questions, better information can be obtained. The researcher can analyze the research problem comprehensively by asking accurate research questions .
Since the structure of the interview is fixed, it often generates reliable results and is quick to execute.
The relationship between the researcher and the respondent is not formal, due to which the researcher can clearly understand the margin of error in case the respondent either degree to be a part of the survey or is just not interested in providing the right information.

Disadvantages of structured interviews:

The limited scope of assessment of obtained results.
The accuracy of information overpowers the detail of information.
Respondents are forced to select from the provided answer options.
The researcher is expected to always adhere to the list of decided questions, irrespective of how interesting the conversation is turning out to be with the participants.
A significant amount of time is required for a structured interview.

Learn more: Market Research

2. Semi-Structured Types of Interviews:

Semi-structured interviews offer a considerable amount of leeway to the researcher to probe the respondents, along with maintaining a basic interview structure. Even if it is a guided conversation between researchers and interviewees – appreciable flexibility is offered to the researchers. A researcher can be assured that multiple interview rounds will not be required in the presence of structure in this type of research interview.

Keeping the structure in mind, the researcher can follow any idea or take creative advantage of the entire interview. Additional respondent probing is always necessary to garner information for a research study. The best application of semi-structured interviews is when the researcher doesn’t have time to conduct research and requires detailed information about the topic.

Example of a semi-structured interview question:

Here’s an example of a semi-structured marketing job interviews question:

Can you tell us about the marketing work you’ve done?
What do you think are the most important parts of a marketing campaign that works?
Tell me about a campaign you worked on that you’re very proud of.
How do you do research on the market and look at data to help you make marketing decisions?
Can you tell us about a time when you had to change your marketing plan because of something that didn’t go as planned?
How do you figure out if a marketing campaign worked?
Can you talk about how you’ve used social media to market?
How do you ensure your marketing message gets through to the people you want to hear it?
Can you tell us about a time when you had to run a marketing campaign on a small budget?
How do you keep up with changes and trends in marketing?

Advantages of semi-structured interviews:

Questions from semi-structured interview questions are prepared before the scheduled interview, giving the researcher time to prepare and analyze the questions.
It is flexible to an extent while maintaining the research guidelines.
Unlike a structured interview, researchers can express the interview questions in the preferred format.
Reliable qualitative data can be collected via these interviews.
The flexible structure of the interview.

Learn more: Quantitative Data

Disadvantages of semi-structured interviews:

Participants may question the reliability factor of these interviews due to the flexibility offered.
Comparing two different answers becomes difficult as the guideline for conducting interviews is not entirely followed. No two questions will have the exact same structure, and the result will be an inability to compare are infer results.

3. Unstructured Interviews:

Also called in-depth interviews , unstructured interviews are usually described as conversations held with a purpose in mind – to gather data about the research study. These interviews have the least number of questions as they lean more towards a normal conversation but with an underlying subject.

The main objective of most researchers using unstructured interviews is to build a bond with the respondents, due to which there is a high chance that the respondents will be 100% truthful with their answers. There are no guidelines for the researchers to follow. So they can approach the participants ethically to gain as much information as possible about their research topic.

Since there are no guidelines for these interviews, a researcher is expected to keep their approach in check so that the respondents do not sway away from the main research motive.

For a researcher to obtain the desired outcome, he/she must keep the following factors in mind:

The intent of the interview.
The interview should primarily take into consideration the participant’s interests and skills.
All the conversations should be conducted within the permissible limits of research, and the researcher should try and stick by these limits.
The researcher’s skills and knowledge should match the interview’s purpose.
Researchers should understand the dos and don’ts of it.

Example of an unstructured interview question:

Here’s an example of a question asked in an unstructured interview:

Can you tell me about when you had to deal with something hard and how you did it?
What are some of the things you’re most proud of, and what did you learn from them?
How do you deal with ambiguity or not knowing what to do at work?
Can you describe how you lead and how you get your team going?
Tell me about a time when you had to take a chance and how it turned out.
What do you think are the most important qualities for success in this role?
How do you deal with setbacks or failures, and what do you learn from them?
Can you tell me about a time when you had to solve a problem by thinking outside the box?
What do you think makes you different from the other people who want this job?
Can you tell me about a time when you had to make a hard choice and how you made that choice?

Advantages of Unstructured Interviews:

Due to this type of interview’s informal nature, it becomes extremely easy for researchers to try and develop a friendly rapport with the participants. This leads to gaining insights in extreme detail without much conscious effort.
The participants can clarify all their doubts about the questions, and the researcher can take each opportunity to explain his/her intention for better answers.
There are no questions that the researcher has to abide by, and this usually increases the flexibility of the entire research process.

Disadvantages of Unstructured Interviews:

Researchers take time to execute these interviews because there is no structure to the interview process.
The absence of a standardized set of questions and guidelines indicates that its reliability of it is questionable.
The ethics involved in these interviews are often considered borderline upsetting.

Learn more: Qualitative Market Research & Qualitative Data Collection

Besides the 3 basic interview types, we have already mentioned there are more. Here are some other interview types that are commonly used in a job interview:

Behavioral Interview

During this type of interview, candidates are asked to give specific examples of how they have acted in the past. The idea behind this kind of interview is that what someone did in the past can be a sign of how they will act in the future. And by this interview, the company can also understand the interviewee’s behavior through body language.

Panel Interview

During a panel interview, three or more interviewers usually ask questions and evaluate the candidate’s answers as a group. This is a good way to get a full picture of a candidate’s skills and suitability for the job.

Group Types of Interviews

Multiple people are interviewed at the same time in group interviews. This form of interview often focus groups that are utilized on entry-level positions or employment in customer service to examine how well candidates get along with others and function as a team.

Case Interview

During a case interview, candidates are given a business problem or scenario and asked to think about how to solve it. In the consulting and finance fields, this kind of interview is common.

Technical Interview

A candidate’s technical skills and knowledge are tested during a technical interview, usually in fields like engineering or software development. Most of the time, candidates are asked to solve problems or complete technical tasks.

Stress Interview

During a stress interview, candidates are put under pressure or asked difficult or confrontational questions on purpose to see how they react in stressful situations. This kind of interview is used to see how well a candidate can deal with stress and hard situations.

Methods of Research Interviews:

There are four methods to conduct research interviews, each of which is peculiar in its application and can be used according to the research study requirement.

Personal Interviews:

Personal interviews are one of the most used types of interviews, where the questions are asked personally directly to the respondent as a form of an individual interview. One of the many in-person interviews is a lunch interview, which is frequently better suited for casual inquiries and discussions.

For this, a researcher can have a guide to online surveys to take note of the answers. A researcher can design his/her survey in such a way that they take notes of the comments or points of view that stands out from the interviewee. It can be a one-on-one interview as well.

Higher response rate.
When the interviewees and respondents are face-to-face, there is a way to adapt the questions if this is not understood.
More complete answers can be obtained if there is doubt on both sides or a remarkable piece of information is detected.
The researcher has an opportunity to detect and analyze the interviewee’s body language at the time of asking the questions and taking notes about it.

Disadvantages:

They are time-consuming and extremely expensive.
They can generate distrust on the part of the interviewee since they may be self-conscious and not answer truthfully.
Contacting the interviewees can be a real headache, either scheduling an appointment in workplaces or going from house to house and not finding anyone.
Therefore, many interviews are conducted in public places like shopping centers or parks. Even consumer studies take advantage of these sites to conduct interviews or surveys and give incentives, gifts, and coupons. In short, There are great opportunities for online research in shopping centers.
Among the advantages of conducting such types of interviews is that the respondents will have more fresh information if the interview is conducted in the context and with the appropriate stimuli so that researchers can have data from their experience at the scene of the events immediately and first hand. The interviewer can use an online survey through a mobile device that will undoubtedly facilitate the entire process.

Telephonic Type of Interviews:

Phonic interviews are widely used and easily combined with online surveys to conduct research effectively.

Advantages:

To find the interviewees, it is enough to have their phone numbers on hand.
They are usually lower cost.
The information is collected quickly.
Having a personal contact can also clarify doubts or give more details of the questions.
Many times researchers observe that people do not answer phone calls because it is an unknown number for the respondent or simply already changed their place of residence and they cannot locate it, which causes a bias in the interview.
Researchers also face that they simply do not want to answer and resort to pretexts such as they are busy to answer, they are sick, they do not have the authority to answer the questions asked, they have no interest in answering, or they are afraid of putting their security at risk.
One of the aspects that should be taken care of in these types of interviews is the kindness with which the interviewers address the respondents in order to get them to cooperate more easily with their answers. Good communication is vital for the generation of better answers.

Email or Web Page Types of Interviews:

Online research is growing more and more because consumers are migrating to a more virtual world, and it is best for each researcher to adapt to this change.

The increase in people with Internet access has made it popular that interviews via email or web page stand out among the types of interviews most used today. For this nothing better than an online survey.

More and more consumers are turning to online shopping, which is why they are a great niche to be able to carry out an interview that will generate information for the correct decision-making.

Advantages of email surveys:

Speed in obtaining data
The respondents respond according to their time, when they want, and where they decide.
Online surveys can be mixed with other research methods or using some of the previous interview models. They are tools that can perfectly complement and pay for the project.
A researcher can use a variety of questions and logic to create graphs and reports immediately.

Disadvantages of email survey:

Low response rates
Limited access to certain populations
Potential for spam filters
Lack of personal touch

Try not to do any of the following things when you’re in an interview:

Don’t blame your previous managers, coworkers, or companies. This will make a bad impression on the interviewer and show that you are not accountable.
Do not go to the interview without knowing anything about the company you are interviewing for. Interviewers will think you don’t care about learning about the company if you don’t know anything.
Don’t fidget with things because that shows you lack self-confidence and focus.
Stop checking the time because it shows that you have something more important to do and that you don’t give the interview much importance.

MORE LIKE THIS

Data Information vs Insight: Essential differences

May 14, 2024

Pricing Analytics Software: Optimize Your Pricing Strategy

May 13, 2024

Relationship Marketing: What It Is, Examples & Top 7 Benefits

May 8, 2024

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

May 7, 2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

Researching the researcher-as-instrument: an exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity

Anne e pezalla.

Pennsylvania State University, USA

Jonathan Pettigrew

Michelle miller-day.

Because the researcher is the instrument in semistructured or unstructured qualitative interviews, unique researcher characteristics have the potential to influence the collection of empirical materials. This concept, although widely acknowledged, has garnered little systematic investigation. This article discusses the interviewer characteristics of three different interviewers who are part of a qualitative research team. The researcher/interviewers – and authors of this article – reflect on their own and each other’s interviews and explore the ways in which individual interview practices create unique conversational spaces. The results suggest that certain interviewer characteristics may be more effective than others in eliciting detailed narratives from respondents depending on the perceived sensitivity of the topic, but that variation in interviewer characteristics may benefit rather than detract from the goals of team-based qualitative inquiry. The authors call for the inclusion of enhanced self-reflexivity in interviewer training and development activities and argue against standardization of interviewer practices in qualitative research teams.

Introduction

Inner Silence Writing, Reflecting, Hoping Slipping into Truth Interviewing moments Take me by surprise Like Sunlight ( Janesick, 1998 : 53)

The level of researcher involvement in qualitative interviewing – indeed, the embodiment of the unique researcher as the instrument for qualitative data collection – has been widely acknowledged (e.g. Cassell, 2005 ; Rubin and Rubin, 2005 ; Turato, 2005 ). Because the researcher is the instrument in semistructured or unstructured qualitative interviews, unique researcher attributes have the potential to influence the collection of empirical materials. Although it is common for scholars to advocate for interviewer reflexivity ( Ellis and Berger, 2003 ; Pillow, 2003 ) and acknowledge the researcher as the primary instrument in qualitative interview studies ( Guba and Lincoln 1981 ; Merriam 2002 ), with some notable exceptions (e.g. Pitts and Miller-Day, 2007 ; Watts, 2008 ) few have actually examined the qualitative interview as a collaborative enterprise, as an exchange between two parties, reflecting on the ways in which the interviewer affects the organization of this talk-in-interaction and the processes by which the talk is produced. Given this, the first aim of this study is to provide a reflexive account of how three different interviewers (authors Jonathan, Annie, and Michelle) individually facilitate unique conversational spaces in their qualitative interviews.

Understanding the qualitative interview as social interaction is important for any sole qualitative researcher, but as Miller-Day et al. (2009) pointed out, this may be particularly germane for qualitative research teams (QRT). Herriott and Firestone (1983) argued that when there is more than one interviewer on a QRT, inconsistencies in interview style and approach may affect the quality of the research conversation and ultimately the study findings. Indeed, several published resources on QRTs suggest that interviewers should receive the same standard training with an eye toward producing consistent strategies and credible findings ( Bergman and Coxon, 2005 ; United States Agency for International Development’s Center for Development Information and Evaluation, 1996 ). Unfortunately, current literature addressing QRTs has primarily focused on the relationship dynamics among research team members (e.g. Fernald and Duclos, 2005 ; Rogers-Dillon, 2005 ; Sanders and Cuneo, 2010 ; Treloar and Graham, 2003 ) and on group analytical procedures (e.g. Guest and MacQueen, 2007 ; MacQueen et al., 1999 ; Olesen et al., 1994 ) rather than on the team member roles (e.g. interviewer, analyst) or data collection practices (e.g. strategies for building rapport). As QRTs are becoming more prevalent, especially in funded research ( Barry et al., 1999 ; Ferguson et al., 2009 ), there is a need for more information about how to maximize the use of multiple interviewers and maintain a focus on the unified research goals while respecting the flexibility of the in-depth qualitative interview as talk-in-interaction ( Mallozzi, 2009 ; Miller-Day et al., 2009 ). Toward that end, the second aim of this study is to reflect on and discuss implications of the study findings for qualitative research teams.

Researcher-as-instrument

The phrase researcher-as-instrument refers to the researcher as an active respondent in the research process ( Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995 ). Researchers ‘use their sensory organs to grasp the study objects, mirroring them in their consciousness, where they then are converted into phenomenological representations to be interpreted’ ( Turato, 2005 : 510). It is through the researcher’s facilitative interaction that a conversational space is created – that is, an arena where respondents feel safe to share stories on their experiences and life worlds ( Owens, 2006 ).

Across the years, scholars have considered the nature of researcher-as-instrument as interpreter of empirical materials and as involved in the construction of ideas ( Janesick, 2001 ; Singer et al., 1983 ). This consideration began to grow after feminist UK scholars such as Oakley (1981) and Graham (1983) criticized quantitative-based research methods that assumed a detached and value-free researcher in the acquisition and interpretation of gathered data, and was further developed by feminist ethnographers such as Stack (1995) , who offered seminal research on ‘dramatizing both writer and subject’ in fieldwork on neighborhoods and communities (p. 1). More recently, scholars have extended their interest of researcher-instruments to consider specific interviewing strategies. Conversation analysis tools have often been used to examine the intricacies of interview conversations, studying the ways in which the ‘how’ of a given interview shapes the ‘what’ that is produced ( Holstein and Gubrium, 1995 ; Pillow, 2003 ).

While qualitative scholars agree that a conversational space must be created, they often disagree as to what that space should look like. Some scholars argue for a Rogerian interviewing space, where empathy, transparency, and unconditional positive regard are felt ( Janesick, 2001 ; Mallozzi, 2009 ; Matteson and Lincoln, 2009 ). Pitts and Miller-Day (2007) documented specific trajectories experienced by qualitative interviewers when establishing rapport with research participants, and the authors argue that a feeling of interpersonal connection was necessary for the qualitative interviewer and interviewee to develop a partnership. These claims are grounded in the feminist or postructuralist perspective, which hold that ‘the essential self … is not automatically revealed in a neutral environment but can and might need to be benevolently coaxed out into a safe environment, where it can be actualized’ ( Mallozzi, 2009 : 1045).

Others advocate against a feminist approach to interviewing. Tanggaard (2007) , for example, viewed empathy to be a dangerous interviewer quality because it tends to create a superficial form of friendship between interviewer and respondent. Self-disclosure has been similarly critiqued ( Abell et al., 2006 ). These critics hold that self-disclosure may actually distance the interviewer from the respondent when the self-disclosure portrays the interviewer as more knowledgeable than the respondent. These studies question the popular assumption that displays of empathy or acts of self-disclosure are naturally interpreted by the respondent as a means of establishing a conversational space of rapport and mutual understanding.

So where do these opposing viewpoints lead us as researchers? For the three of us who are authoring this article, the answer to that question is an unsatisfactory, ‘we are not sure.’ Working as part of a QRT, we were trained in a systematic manner, provided with clear procedures for carrying out our qualitative interviews, and educated in the ultimate goals of the research project. The interviewees in this team project were a fairly homogenous group – rural 6–7th grade students – and all three of us interviewed youth in both grades, both male and female, gregarious and stoic. Yet, the interviews we conducted all turned out to be very different. What stood out to us was that our individual attributes as researchers seemed to impact the manner in which we conducted our interviews and affected how we accomplished the primary objective of the interviews, which was to elicit detailed narratives from the adolescents. Hence, we set forth to better understand how we, as research instruments, individually facilitated unique conversational spaces in our interviews and determine if there were some researcher attributes or practices that were more effective than others in eliciting detailed narratives from the adolescent respondents. Additionally, we sought to reflect on the emergent findings and offer a discussion of how unique conversational spaces might impact QRTs.

Gathering and analyzing empirical materials

The team-based qualitative research, participants.

The empirical materials for the current study came from a larger study designed to understand the social context of substance use for rural adolescents in two Mid-Atlantic States. A total of 113 participants between 12 and 19 years old ( M = 13.68, SD = 1.37) were recruited from schools identified as rural based on one of two main criteria: (a) the school district being located in a ‘rural’ area as determined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, n.d.; and (b) the school’s location in a county being considered ‘Appalachian’ according to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Participating schools served a large population of economically disadvantaged students identified by family income being equal to or less than 180 percent of the United States Department of Agricultural federal poverty guidelines and these guidelines start at an annual salary of $20,036 but increase by $6,919 for each additional household member ( Ohio Department of Education 2010 ).

Interview team

Eleven interviewers comprised the qualitative research team for this team-based study. All underwent at least four hours of interviewer training, which reviewed interview protocol and procedures, summarized guidelines for ethical research, and included interview practice and feedback. During training, interviewers were given a clear interview schedule. Because the interviews were semistructured, the interviewers were instructed to use the schedule as a guide. They were instructed not to read the questions word-for-word from the interview schedule, but instead to use their own phrasing for asking each question, use additional probes or prompts if necessary, and use a communication style that felt comfortable and natural to them. Interviewers were also instructed to interact with their participants as learners attempting to understand the participants’ experiences and realities from their perspectives ( Baxter and Babbie, 2004 ). All interviewers on the team participated in mock interview sessions and were provided with initial feedback about their interview skill.

The interviews themselves were conducted in private locations within the schools such as guidance counselors’ offices or unused classrooms or conference rooms. In most cases, either the adult school contact or the study liaison brought students to their interview site to ensure that the interviewer did not know the students’ names – only their unique identification number. Researchers assured all students their responses would remain confidential, in accordance with Institutional Review Board standards, and the interviewee was permitted to withdraw his/her data from the study at any time. All interviews were digitally recorded and ranged from 18–91 minutes in length. This length is typical of interviews dealing with sensitive topics such as drug use in a school-based setting ( Alberts et al., 1991 ; Botvin et al., 2000 ).

The present study: Three Voices in the Crowd

Interview sample.

For the purpose of the present study we all agreed that self-reflexivity was necessary to ‘understand ourselves as part of the process of understanding others’ ( Ellis and Berger, 2003 : 486), increase the transparency of our findings, and increase the legitimacy and validity of our research. Therefore, we elected to limit our analysis to only those interviews that the three of us conducted, excluding transcripts from the other eight interviewers in the team-based study. Transcripts of the interviews were provided by a professional transcriptionist who was blind to the purpose of the study. A total of 18 interviews were transcribed (six per interviewer). Further refining the sample, we elected to analyze only interviews that we deemed to be of sufficient quality. Transcript quality was based on two indicators: (a) the level of transcription detail; and (b) the ability of the respondent to speak and understand English. Transcripts that were poorly done (i.e. that failed to include sufficient detail from the interview audio file) or that indicated that the respondent did not understand English were rated as low quality and were not included in final analyses. We took this step to ensure that all transcripts in the study sample were of sufficient quality and provided adequate detail to decipher our interviewer practices. From the 18 originally submitted transcripts, we found 13 to be of sufficient quality, and retained them for analysis.

Analysis procedures

Following Baptiste’s (2001) advice, the first step in our analysis was to acknowledge our interpretivist orientation and to honestly discuss among ourselves the risks involved with self-reflexively examining our own work. If you think it is difficult to listen to your own voice in an audio-recording, imagine listening to your own voice and simultaneously reading the text illustrating your own interview errors, dysfluencies, and awkward pauses! This first step was perhaps the most difficult, but it resulted in a shared agreement for honest self-reflection and analysis.

The next step involved restricting our analysis to three specifically selected topics from the research interview. The three discussion topics included rural living, identity and future selves, and risky behavior. We identified these topics of discussion because they each represented a different level of emotional risk for the respondents ( Corbin and Morse, 2003 ), based on the assumptions that (a) respondents were all relatively similar in their emotional well-being – specifically, that none were too emotionally fragile to engage in a conversation with us, and (b) discussing topics of illegal or private activities would arouse more powerful emotions in respondents than would topics of legal and mundane activities. Across the entire sample of interviews, conversations on rural living were seen as fairly low-risk topics of discussion. The topic often served as a warm-up for many interview conversations because the topic was easy for respondents to discuss. Conversations on identity and future selves were typically perceived as moderately uncomfortable for respondents. Respondents were asked to talk about their personality characteristics and who they wanted to become in the future. Although some respondents appeared to enjoy the opportunity to talk about themselves, many appeared mildly uncomfortable doing so, perhaps because they were being asked to talk about themselves with someone they did not know. Conversations on risky behavior were often perceived to be more dangerous. Despite being reassured that their stories would remain confidential, respondents were nevertheless being asked to disclose information about potentially illegal activities in which they had taken part. These topics of discussion were not always mutually exclusive (e.g. respondents often talked about risky behavior when they discussed rural living); but, because every interview in the larger study included topics of discussion that were low, moderate, and highly sensitive, we believed that the three chosen topics of discussion represented an appropriate cross-section of the interview.

Dividing interviews into topics of discussion provided a way to organize long transcripts into relatively distinct topical areas. It also allowed us to examine interviewer practices across comparable topics of discussion, and to assess the ways in which particular characteristics facilitated different conversational spaces.

The next step involved identifying and labeling the discussion of each of the three topics within each of the 13 transcripts. As we labeled the related passages in the transcripts, each of us followed the same iterative analytic process, commencing with an analysis of our own individual transcripts and followed by a cross-case analysis of each others’ transcripts. Our individual, within-case analysis proceeded along four main steps: reading through our own transcripts 2–3 times before extracting the separate topics of discussion; then within each topic of discussion across all of our own interviews, we inductively identified, interpreted, and labeled what we each saw as important in the utterances, sequencing, and details of the conversational interaction, assessing the ways in which interviewer practices seemed to facilitate and to inhibit respondent disclosure. For our purposes, we defined an interviewer practice as an action performed repeatedly. These practices were eventually categorized into groups of interviewer characteristics. We conceptually defined an interviewer characteristic as a distinguishing general feature or overall quality of the interviewer. Throughout this process we individually developed and refined our code lists, discussing our emergent codes with one another via weekly meetings and email correspondence. As part of this process, we coded our own transcripts and then shared and discussed our code list with the others. Next, each of us (re) coded a portion of each other’s transcripts and calculated the percentage of raw coding agreement. Disagreements were negotiated until we all reached consensus on a working list of codes. This cross-case analysis did not commence until we had reached a minimum coding agreement of .80. Within the topic of rural living, for example, if two of us each generated five codes to describe one interviewer’s researcher-as-instrument characteristics, consensus was necessary on at least four of those codes before a trustworthy assessment could be made.

During the cross-case analysis we compared and contrasted the coded material within and across the entire sample of transcripts to identify discrepancies and consistencies in our codes. From this process, we reduced the code list to a common set of researcher-as-instrument characteristics and interviewing practices that were present in the utterances, sequencing, and details of the conversational interactions. Throughout this process we explicitly identified evidence (excerpts from the interview transcripts) for any research claim to connect the empirical materials with any findings ( Maxwell, 1996 ). The three of us met periodically to conference, share ideas, and challenge and refine emergent findings. We used Nvivo 8 to manage and analyze the interview data. In the end, we were able to (a) identify and describe individual interviewer practices that served to characterize each of us as individual interviewers, and (b) compare and contrast our individual differences within and across the different topics in the interview conversation. During this comparison we paid special attention to the adolescent’s contribution to the conversation and his or her level of disclosure.

Interviewer characteristics

Annie’s general interviewer characteristics were coded as affirming, energetic , and interpretive. The affirming characteristic was defined as ‘showing support for a respondent’s idea or belief’ and is illustrated in the following excerpt:

Annie : What do you do? Resp : I help the milkers, I help – Annie : You know how to milk a cow? That’s so cool, that’s great. Resp : Yeah, but you have to watch out ’cause they kick sometimes. ’Cause they don’t want you messing with their teats – they kick, it’s, uh … Annie : Have you been kicked? Resp : I got kicked in the arm, but I’m scared I’m gonna get kicked in the face one of these days. Annie : Yeah, that would really hurt, huh? Oh, wow, that’s amazing.

Comments like ‘that’s so cool, that’s great,’ and ‘Oh, wow, that’s amazing’ illustrated the affirmation. Annie’s affirming characteristic could be seen in other transcript passages in phrases such as ‘great,’ ‘awesome,’ ‘amazing,’ and ‘excellent.’ Annie’s interviewer characteristics were also coded as energetic , defined as ‘showing wonder, astonishment, or confusion by something respondent said that was unexpected, or remarkable.’

Annie : So you like dirt bikes. Do you have one of your own? Resp : Yeah, I have a, it’s a one, it’s a two-fifty. It’s like a, it’s a CRX 250, it’s like … Annie : Oh, wow! Is it a pretty big bike? Wow, what do you like to do on it? Resp : I just ride around in the fields and usually chase after deer on it. Annie : Really!

Annie : Um, is your sister older or younger? Resp : She’s younger, she’s ten. Annie : So you kinda look out for her? Resp : Yeah. She likes to feed the calves. Annie : Oooooh!! Cute little baby calves. That’s neat. Wow! How unique. That’s really, really cool.

Annie : What’s a – dwarf bunny? What is that? Resp : Yeah, they’re like little bunnies – they’re about that big. Annie : Like real bunnies? Resp : Yeah, they’re about that big – Annie : Oh, dwarf bunnies. Oooh!

The sheer number of exclamation marks in Annie’s transcripts illustrated her energetic interviewer characteristic, but the words she used (wow, really, oooooh) also illustrated the lively quality of her interview approach.

Lastly, Annie was also characterized as being interpretive , conceptually defined as ‘expressing a personal opinion or interpretation regarding something a respondent said.’ For example:

Resp : And I chugged it and like, I passed out. Annie : Did you have to go to the hospital? Resp : Oh no. We were in the middle of the woods and we weren’t saying anything ’cause we all would get busted. Annie : Oh my gosh, oh, you must have felt terrible.

Annie : Do you think that he drinks beer, or does chew or smokes cigarettes? Resp : He probably does, but – Annie : Do you think so? Um, and so when he offered this to you, were you, were you uncomfortable? Like, did you feel kind of weird?

In all of the above passages, Annie’s interpretive nature is evident in instances where she offers her own construal of the respondent’s story (e.g. ‘you must have felt terrible’), or when she creates a hypothetical scenario for the respondent to comment on (‘do you think he drinks beer?’). Such utterances illustrate her tendency to offer an opinion, either in response to a respondent’s story or before a conversation formally began.

Jonathan’s interviewer characteristics were characterized by neutrality and naivety. The neutral interviewer characteristic, defined as ‘not engaged on one side of argument or another; neither affirming nor disapproving of respondent’s stories,’ was best illustrated by the lack of extensive commentary Jonathan provided in his interviews. In comparison to Annie’s transcripts, Jonathan’s transcripts were characterized by shorter utterances, fewer opinionated responses, and very few exclamation marks:

Jonathan : Who were you living with in [name of town]? Resp : My mom. But she, my grandma got custody of me, so. Jonathan : What, what happened to do that? Like, what, what brought you? Resp : Well, I got put in [the local in-patient treatment facility] ’cause I said I was gonna kill myself. Jonathan : Oh, okay.

Jonathan : Okay. What, um, so does your dad mind if you drink then? Like, if he found out that you were going to the bar party and that you had gotten drunk, what would he say? Resp : He probably wouldn’t do anything because, like, I used to have parties at his house, at my dad’s house. But then he got, then he went to jail, so we stopped [lowers tone, quieter] In case, like, ’cause they were keeping a good eye on him after he got out. Jonathan : Mm hmm. Resp : So we stopped having parties there, just so that, like, my dad wouldn’t get in trouble for, like, the underage drinking. Jonathan : Okay.

It was often difficult to even see evidence of Jonathan’s ‘footprint’ in his transcripts because he maintained a fairly minimal presence in his interviews. As seen from the illustrations above, Jonathan kept many of his responses or comments to single-word phrases, ‘Okay,’ or ‘Mm hmm,’ or ‘Yeah.’ When Jonathan did offer more extensive commentary, it was often to acknowledge his lack of understanding about a subject matter. His transcripts often included passages like ‘I’ve never been here before’ or ‘I don’t know anything about that .’ It was in these instances that Jonathan’s interviewer characteristic of naive , defined as showing a lack of knowledge or information about respondent, was best illustrated:

Jonathan : Is it like illegal? Or is it like the whole town shuts down, they do racing down the streets? Resp : It’s illegal. Jonathan : Yes? I don’t know – you got tell me these things. I am learning.

These illustrations of naivety were most likely uttered to give the respondent a sense of mastery over the interview topics of discussion, and to elicit the respondent’s interpretations of the events or topics of discussion.

Michelle’s interviewer characteristics illustrated different qualities than either Jonathan or Annie. Michelle’s qualities as an interviewer were coded as being high in affirmation and self-disclosure. Michelle’s transcripts were filled with encouragement and compliments toward her respondents. The following utterances from Michelle illustrate this characteristic:

My goodness, you are smart for a seventh grader … It sounds like you are very helpful … Yes, that is a skill that you have there, that not a lot of people do have …

These instances of affirmation, defined as ‘showing support for a respondent’s idea or belief,’ were found in almost every topic of discussion. Michelle’s transcripts were also filled with instances of self-disclosure. Michelle often used stories of her adolescent son when she was explaining a topic that she wanted to discuss with the adolescent respondents:

Resp : On Friday nights, tonight I’ll go to my gran’s and we usually have a get-together and just play cards, it’s just a thing we do. I like it. It’s just time to spend with family. Michelle : Absolutely. Well, that sounds really nice. And I have a 14-year old in eighth grade. And every Sunday night, we do the game night sort of thing and I look forward to it.

The passages above illustrate three distinct interviewer characteristics: one high in affirmations, energy, interpretations ; another characterized by neutrality and naivety ; and another high in affirmations and self-disclosure . Although all three interviewers demonstrated other instrument qualities in their interviews, the few qualities associated with each interviewer above were found in nearly every topic of discussion (e.g. in almost every conversational topic for Annie, there was evidence of her affirming, energetic , and interpretive interviewer characteristics). These qualities seemed to characterize the unique style of the interviewers rather than reflect reactions to specific contexts. These qualities also persisted in our other interviews not included in these analyses.

Topics of discussion

In the following section, we compare our general interviewer characteristics across the three topics of discussion: rural living, identity and future selves, and risky behavior. We also examine the ways in which our respective interviewer characteristics appeared to influence the conversational space of our interviews. Specifically, we assess how the various interviewer characteristics seemed to facilitate or inhibit respondent disclosure.

Low threat topic: Rural living

Rural living was generally a low-risk topic. In her discussion of this topic with one adolescent, Michelle tended to utilize her self-disclosing characteristic:

Michelle : Are there groups or, like, not cliques, I don’t wanna say, but groups in school; kids who are more like you, who are more into the computers, versus the kids who are huntin’ and fishin’, versus the jocks? I know at my son’s school there are. Resp : There’s not really anybody like that here. Like all of my friends who are like that, they’re in a higher grade than me. But there are some people in my grade where I can relate to in a sense, yeah. Michelle : Okay, so most kids you can relate to are older but most o’ the kids, your peers and your age, are more into the four wheeling and hunting and fishing and kinda stuff like that? That must feel, well, I don’t know, I’m, I’m projecting now unto my own son because sometimes he feels like, that you know, it’s just ridiculous. Resp : Yeah. Michelle : It, eh, ya’ know – and you feel kinda stuck. Resp : Mmm hmm. Michelle : Yeah? Resp : Yeah. I just, like I’ll be sitting there in class and then they’ll start talking about hunting or fishing and I just wanna pull out my hair’ cause I, I don’t know how you can like that stuff. Like it’s just sitting there for a couple of hours doing nothing. Michelle : Right, right.

From the excerpt above, the respondent’s experience with school crowds did not appear to coincide with Michelle’s understanding of her son’s with school crowds. However, Michelle’s self-disclosure seemed to open up the conversational space for the respondent to respond in kind. In the final passage, the respondent offered a different perspective on the nature of crowds in his school.

Conversely, in his conversations with respondents about rural living, Jonathan tended to demonstrate his naive interviewer characteristic:

Jonathan : Is this [name of X town]? Is that where you live now? I don’t even know where I am. Okay, okay. I thought this was [name of Y town] is why, but it’s just the name of the High School. Resp : Well, this is [name of Y town], but [name of X town] is out near. Jonathan : Uh, I’m not, I don’t know this area so well … Resp : And then, like, when you hit, there’s this big huge fire station … and then there’s the [name of X town] Elementary School. And then if you go down there and then you turn and you go up, and then that, like, that whole area in there is [name of X town]. Jonathan : Okay. Resp : And then you go back and where there’s classified as [name of X town], but it’s actually [name of Z town]. Jonathan : Okay.

In response to Jonathan’s naivety (‘I don’t even know where I am’ and ‘I don’t know this area so well’), the respondent appeared to seize the opportunity to teach Jonathan about the area. The respondent did not simply answer Jonathan’s questions; he provided information about which Jonathan did not ask (e.g. the whereabouts of the fire station, elementary school, and nearby towns).

In contrast, Annie’s conversations about rural living were filled with her energetic interviewer characteristic:

Annie : What do you mean by hang out, like what do you ha-, what do you do when you hang out? Resp : We go four wheeler riding. Annie : Oh, four wheeler riding! Cool! Is that dangerous? Is it? Resp : Yeah, and we go up to our camp we built. Um … Annie : That you and your friends built? Resp : Mmm hmm. Annie : Wow! How did you know how to do all that? Resp : Um, my brother and a couple of his friends, that we’re really good friends with, helped us. And like, over the summer we camp out like every night. Like, I’m never home in the summertime, ever. Annie : Wow! Resp : There are three bedrooms and it’s, has a wood burner and it, yeah. Annie : That’s like, that sounds like a real house. That’s amazing. Resp : We built it out of trees. We had our, couple of our friends and our dads help us. We’ve had it for three years and it’s really nice.

After Annie’s lively reply to the respondent’s interest in four wheeler riding (‘Oh, four wheeler riding! Cool!’), the respondent opened up about a different, but related topic: her summer camp house. Moreover, Annie’s energetic comment about the house (‘Wow! How did you know how to do all that?’) seemed to open the conversational space even more, as the respondent explained the ways the house was built, the amenities of the house, and the amount of time she spent in the house during the summer.

Moderate threat topic: Identity and future selves

Conversations about the adolescents’ identity and future selves were considered moderately uncomfortable for adolescents. The interview questions prompted the adolescents to talk about the qualities that described their personal and social identities, along with any hopes and aspirations they had for the future. Although the interview questions were designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, the topic was fairly personal. The interview questions required the adolescent respondent to be introspective with someone with whom they had no personal history:

Jonathan : After you’re all done with school, so you go through and you graduate from a high school. What do you want to do after that? Resp : Go back to Mexico and visit my family, and um get a job. Jonathan : Back in Mexico? Resp : It doesn’t really matter where, but just like get a job. Jonathan : Yes. What kind of job? Resp : Probably like a secretary or whatever job they give me, except prostitute. Jonathan : None a’ that. Is there anything you worry about in that transition of how you’re going to go get a job and what kind of job you’ll get, things like that? Resp : Not really, because like, you just have to like – I dunno, just like – just like – go on with life and whatever happens, just, take it.

Here again, Jonathan’s neutrality was demonstrated not by what he said, but what he did not say. Despite the fact that the adolescent shared a potentially troubling disclosure, that she would consider any job except prostitution, Jonathan kept his personal reactions to a minimum and provided only a short response (i.e. ‘None a’ that’). After this instance of neutrality, Jonathan moved on to a different topic (i.e. asking the respondent if she had any concerns about getting a job in the future), and the respondent moved on, as well, dutifully answering his questions. She provided no more information on her prostitution comment.

In comparison to Jonathan, Michelle and Annie’s utterances in their conversations on identity and future selves were replete with codes for affirmation:

Resp : I wanna be a pediatrician nurse or something. Like, I love kids to death. Like, I’ve, I learned how to change – I’ve been changing diapers – this is no lie – I’ve been changing diapers since I was like seven years old. ‘Cause my mom, step-mom, had a baby before my dad left again, and like I was always changing her diapers and stuff, and like, I babysit constantly. Annie : Aww, I bet you’re really good with kids. Resp : Oh, I’m amazing. Like, there’s this one little boy, like he goes to my church, he’s just like four, and I took him to my house one day and like he asked his mom to buy him a toy at the toy store, I cried, she’s like, she’s like, ‘Aww, I can’t sweetie, I don’t have the money’ and he was crying, he and he’s like ‘All my friends have toys. He was like two and he, like he, like he goes over to this daycare and he’s like ‘All my friends have these toys but I don’t have any.’ Like he had no toys at all and like my mom gave them, handed me a hundred dollars and she’s like ‘Go to, go, go buy toys. We gave him a hundred dollars, like we gave him all this money and they went out and bought like a b-, toys and stuff. It was really nice. Annie : That is, that’s really neat.

Michelle : So the first question that I have here is which of these things that you wrote down are you most proud of? Resp : Well, being helpful. Michelle : How are you helpful? Resp : Well. In school, there are some people that don’t like speak English that well. And I help them by translating. Michelle : Oh okay. Like you are doing for your teacher in there. You are helping do that. So how long have you been bilingual your whole life? Do both of your parents speak Spanish? Resp : Well, yes, they are Mexicans. They barely know English. Michelle : And they barely know English. And when did you come here? Resp : When I was nine months old. Michelle : When you were a baby. And before that you lived where? Resp : In Mexico. Michelle : Mexico. So you are 13, so that was when you were a year old. Okay, got it. Okay, so you learned here. So you speak English better than they do it, sounds like. Okay and then you translate. What’s that like translating for them? Resp : Well, for me it’s like sometimes difficult because I never went to school in Mexico and I know more English than Spanish and when I am translating it’s difficult for me. The big words my parents tell me to try to translate it in English. Michelle : Okay. So you’re doing both ways. You’re doing from English to and from Spanish to English. Both. Does that feel like a lot of responsibility for somebody your age? Resp : Yeah, especially when I got field trips stuff like that. I need to tell my parents, that my parents or if my parents needed something that comes in the mail, may be bills or something like that. Michelle : It sounds like you are very helpful. Who do you want to be when you are out of after high school? Resp : Since I like to help out people a lot, I mean, maybe be a translator and maybe in a hospital or in a school so – Michelle : Yes, that is a skill that you have there, that not a lot of people do have. So that’s – I’m glad you realized that, in terms of that.

Annie’s affirming characteristic could be seen in her affirmation of her respondent’s compassion for children (‘I bet you’re really good with kids’); for Michelle, the characteristic could be seen in her affirmations of her respondent’s willingness to help her parents, teacher, and classmates with their English or Spanish (‘… it sounds like you are very helpful’). Both Michelle and Annie’s affirmation seemed to foster a conversational space that was conducive for uninhibited self-disclosure. In response to Annie’s affirmation about owning a daycare someday, the respondent opened up to talk about her talents in working with children, and her compassion for the children in her community who were less fortunate than she. In response to Michelle’s affirmations about the responsibilities of translating for so many people, the respondent expounded on the difficulties of such a responsibility, and the tasks she must perform for various people (e.g. helping her classmates on field trips, assisting her parents with bills).

High threat topic: Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use

Discussions about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug usage (ATOD) were considered highly sensitive topics of discussion, as adolescents were often encouraged to disclose information about their own or their peers’ drug use. Although the respondents were continually reassured that the information they provided was confidential, disclosing information about illegal activity to a stranger was likely a highly sensitive activity. When discussing ATOD with adolescents, each interviewer utilized a different interviewer characteristic. Jonathan’s dominant characteristic when discussing this topic was neutrality :

Resp : Her parents’, like, bar. Like, they own this big, huge bar. And then, like, in the back where the kids can go. Jonathan : Oh, okay. Resp : And her parents don’t really care if you drink. Jonathan : Oh, okay. Resp : Just as long as you do it in the bar. You don’t just go outside, or you don’t tell your parents. Jonathan : Okay. Resp : She doesn’t really know that we drink, but we usually crash in the van, in the RV. Jonathan : Uh huh. Resp : … or out in the yard. And we only do the RV in the summer or in the spring. And then at my other friend’s house who has the bar, we stay at, we do the, we have parties there all the time. Jonathan : Mm hmm. Resp : Just cause her parents don’t care. Jonathan : Yeah.

Even in the midst of some fairly controversial topics of discussion (e.g. underage binge drinking), Jonathan’s neutral characteristic was consistently demonstrated in his calm, even responses (‘okay,’ ‘uh huh’). These neutral responses seemed to provide an unobtrusive backdrop for the respondent to discuss her experiences. Indeed, Jonathan did not even need to ask any questions to the respondent. With minimal prompting, the respondent shared her story.

In comparison to Jonathan, when discussing ATOD, Annie’s approach was coded as interpretive ; she often interjected commentary about the respondents’ stories of risky behavior:

Annie : Do you think that he drinks beer, or does chew or smokes cigarettes? Resp : He probably does … Annie : Um, and so when he offered this to you, were you, were you uncomfortable? Like, did you feel kind of weird? Resp : Mm hmm. Annie : Um, and, and maybe that boy’s brother – like, that guy’s brother – he might smoke or drink from time to time, but, um, that’s about it? Resp : Mm hmm. Annie : It doesn’t seem like too many kids around here do that stuff. Resp : Not as I know.

Annie’s interpretive characteristic stands in stark contrast to Jonathan’s neutral characteristic. Whereas Jonathan’s responses were short and dispassionate, Annie’s responses were somewhat opinionated. These interpretive comments did not seem to generate a conversational space conducive for the respondent’s continued disclosure. Indeed, the transcript above shows that most of the commentary came from Annie, not the respondent.

In discussions on risky behavior, Michelle’s self-disclosing characteristic was evidenced by her stories of her 14-year-old son, and appeared to serve as a point of identification with respondents:

Resp : My parents get mad because I listen to music a lot and I don’t do anything than watch TV. Just hang out with my friends. Michelle : Then your parents get mad because that’s all you do. You know but the good thing about me is I’m not your parent and I don’t care. So I just want to know what kids are doing. It’s, you know, I have an eighth grader actually he’s 14. And that’s exactly what he does. And in the winter it stinks, though you are right because what else is there to do? You know it’s the question, um any way, okay. So, do you know my question to you is, and again, this is purely confidential, we don’t know names we don’t want names or anything. Has anybody ever offered you any alcohol or cigarettes or marijuana or any of those? And have you said yes or no to that? Resp : Yes, they offered me and I’d always told them ‘no’ and what it does. Michelle : Okay, so tell me … pretend that we’re shooting this video. Okay tell me the who when what where why and how. Right? Where were you, not who, not a name. But was it a friend who was older, younger, male, female? That kind of thing. Tell me the story of at least one of these offers. Resp : Okay. I was hanging out with my friends, just walking around, and there is this bigger kid that we know and he was joined by these smokers, and they would always, he would always tell me never to smoke and we just saw him … And then he offered us and we said no. This is not good for you and he plays soccer and he is not really good at soccer.

Michelle’s self-disclosure about her son experiencing similar challenges as the respondent was initially met by the respondent with a short response. However, Michelle’s subsequent question, framed as a hypothetical task (‘ pretend that we’re shooting this video ’), seemed to create an opening in the conversational space for the respondent to share a story.

Summary and discussion

In looking closely at the different practices we employed as interviewers, we were able to identify a variety of distinguishing features that seemed to characterize each of us uniquely. If we were characters in a novel or play, Annie’s character name would be energy , Jonathan’s neutrality , and Michelle’s self-disclosure . Across the different conversation topics in the interview, from low to high risk, these interviewer characteristics functioned differently in eliciting detail from adolescent respondents.

When the adolescents and researchers discussed the low-risk topic of rural living, the three interviewer characteristics (i.e. energy, neutrality, or self-disclosure) generated sufficiently detailed responses from the respondents. Variance across interviewers did not seem to have much impact on the quality of the responses obtained from the adolescent participants. This may have been due, in part, to the low-risk nature of the topic. This is a topic many adolescents can talk easily about, have talked about with others, and do not perceive the information they share as particularly threatening.

When the topic was moderately risky, as was the topic of identities and future selves, Jonathan’s neutral approach contrasted with Michelle and Annie’s affirming approach. Although neutrality appeared somewhat effective in facilitating an open conversational space for respondents, the affirming interviewer characteristic seemed to offer a more nurturing environment for conversation. Rich, detailed disclosures from adolescents about their identities occurred more often when the interviewer utilized an affirming approach and set a tone of acceptance for the respondents. Affirmation may be particularly important with adolescents, since adolescence is a notoriously vulnerable time in development.

When discussing a high risk topic such as alcohol and other drug use, Annie’s interpretive approach appeared to be the least effective in providing a satisfying conversational space for respondents. Jonathan’s neutral characteristic and Michelle’s self-disclosing characteristic appeared to elicit detailed information from their respondents, while Annie’s interpretive characteristic only served to inhibit her respondent’s stories. Michelle’s disclosures, while also interpretive, did not appear to limit responses from the adolescents. Couching Michelle’s interpretive language within a personal narrative may have mitigated its presence, although it still presented leading information. Hence, it could be argued that neutrality (displayed in this context by Jonathan) may be most effective when discussing high risk topics, because this neutrality provides the respondents with the most freedom to disclose what they want and how they want.

An important factor to note in this discussion is that of gender. While we did not explicitly study the role of gender in our analyses, our interviewing styles were rooted in traditional gender norms: Jonathan’s minimalist and neutral styles could be characterized as stereotypically masculine, and Annie and Michelle’s effusive and affirming interviewing styles could be characterized as traditionally feminine. These qualities suggest that interviewing styles cannot be disentangled from one’s gender, and that conversational spaces are influenced by more than simply an interviewer’s words. To this end, practices of reflexivity must acknowledge the implications of what an interviewer says and how it is said, as well as the ways in which those utterances are connected to one’s gender.

Although this study provides some intriguing findings, it was limited in a variety of ways. For one, we did not employ detailed conversation analysis procedures on each individual utterance in the interview. And despite the range of conversational segments in the interviews (i.e. introductions, research explanations, establishing rapport, soliciting honesty and openness, a period of questions and answers on six core topics, summarizing the discussion, and closings), for the purposes of this study, we elected to limit our analysis specifically to three topics in the question and answer segment. Nor did we examine other conversational features, such as the role of silence or turn-taking. Conversational features such as those, while certainly worth our attention, were beyond the scope of this exercise.

Lessons learned

Learning about interviewing and doing interviews are different tasks. This lesson was highly relevant for us when conducting this study. Even though we were all trained in interviewing, we still found ourselves displaying the classic mistakes of a novice researcher: asking long, complicated questions, posturing closed yes-or-no questions, and leading respondents ( deMarrais, 2004 ). While humbling, these mistakes forced us to reflect on how to develop our skills and have guided our interviewing work since that time. Indeed, the kind of self-reflexivity involved in conducting an analysis of your own interviews, and then comparing and contrasting them with others, could be beneficial for individual interviewers as they are honing their craft, and QRTs desiring to identify unique characteristics of their resident interviewers.

In considering our findings, we agree that researchers are indeed the ‘instruments’ in qualitative interview research. After all, it is through the researcher’s facilitative interaction that a conversational space is created where respondents share rich information about their lives. Yet, we argue that qualitative researchers are differently calibrated instruments.

In QRTs, in particular, the goal is often to calibrate all instruments to one standard of accuracy. However, the results of this study illustrate that variation in interviewer characteristics may be a benefit rather than a detriment to team-based qualitative inquiry. All interviewers in this study were effective in conducting engaging conversations with participants and eliciting information, but we did these things employing different practices, and sometimes to different ends. Each interviewer demonstrated a relatively consistent interviewer style across all of his or her interviews – Jonathan was consistently neutral, Michelle consistently self-disclosive, and Annie consistently energetic. This finding leads us to suggest that QRTs might benefit from learning what ‘natural style’ characterizes a possible interviewer and then staffing their teams with interviewers who have complementary styles. Interviewers may then be assigned interview tasks commensurate with their strengths. For example, our team needed to learn both about rural identity and about alcohol and drug use, so Michelle and Annie could have been assigned to interview respondents about rural identity (a ‘safe’ topic) and future selves (a moderately risky topic), which both fit our energetic style. This approach could have helped to engage participants in the research and establish rapport with them among the research team. Then, Jonathan could be assigned to the task of summarizing the information learned about the less risky topics and bringing that information into a second interview to pursue the high risk topic of drug use, implementing his neutral style for a non-evaluative conversational space. This suggestion is founded on a premise similar to utilizing information from personality inventories (e.g. Myers Briggs) to establish work teams in organizations ( Furlow, 2000 ).

Since many interviews must occur during a single visit, however, interviewer ‘profiling’ may not be realistic for QRTs. Another suggestion would be to audio-record interview trainees in mock interviews, share those recordings among the team, then devote some time for team members to offer commentary on (a) the ways in which their teammates embodied similar or different instruments in their interviews and (b) how those instruments seemed to create different conversational spaces. This process need not involve detailed conversation analysis tools; nor should it be formal or performance-based. Instead, it should be congenial and constructive, driven by efforts to respect interviewer flexibility while maintaining fidelity to the research approach. These recommendations are in line with calls issued by Mallozzi (2009) and Miller-Day et al. (2009) , who argued that consistency efforts be focused on research procedures (e.g. securing consent, managing empirical materials) and not on standardizing interviewer characteristics.

In carrying out these recommendations, more research will be needed to understand the complexities of how and under what conditions interviewer characteristics may impact respondent responses. More research will also be needed on the ways QRT practices may change if reflexivity was incorporated at other stages of the process (e.g. forming research questions and gaining access). Yet this study provides a running start toward that end. Through our exercise, we call for greater interviewer reflexivity and acknowledge that researchers are the primary instruments in qualitative interview studies – but differentially calibrated instruments. We disagree with claims that interviewers in qualitative research teams should receive the same standard training with an eye toward producing consistent interview strategies ( Bergman and Coxon, 2005 ) and argue, instead, that diversity of approaches among members of a research team has the potential to strengthen the team through complementarity.

Acknowledgments

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Biographies

Annie Pezalla is the Academic Skills Director at Walden University. Her research addresses identity development across adolescence and young adulthood.

Jonathan Pettigrew is a research analyst and project coordinator for the Drug Resistance Strategies project at Penn State University. His research examines how interpersonal and family interactions correspond with adolescent health.

Michelle Miller-Day is an Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University. She is the Founding Director of the Penn State Qualitative Research Interest Group, an interdisciplinary community of researchers involved in and supporting qualitative inquiry at Penn State University. Her research addresses human communication and health, including areas such as substance use prevention, suicide, and families and mental health. Her community-embedded research has involved numerous creative projects to translate research findings into social change. For the past 20 years she has served as the principal qualitative methodologist for a National Institute on Drug Abuse line of research.

Contributor Information

Anne E Pezalla, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Jonathan Pettigrew, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Michelle Miller-Day, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Abell J, Locke A, Condor S, Gibson S, Stevenson C. Trying similarity, doing difference: the role of interviewer self-disclosure in interview talk with young people. Qualitative Research. 2006; 6 (2):221–244. [ Google Scholar ]
Alberts JK, Miller-Rassulo M, Hecht ML. A typology of drug resistance strategies. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 1991; 19 :129–151. [ Google Scholar ]
Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley C, Stevenson F. Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 1999; 9 (1):26–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baptiste I. Qualitative data analysis: common phases, strategic differences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 2001; 2 (3):Art. 22. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/965/2106 . [ Google Scholar ]
Baxter LA, Babbie ER. The Basics of Communication Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Bergman MM, Coxon APM. The quality in qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 2005; 6 (2):Art. 34. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-34-e.htm . [ Google Scholar ]
Botvin GJ, Griffin KW, Diaz T, Scheier LM, Williams C, Epstein JA. Preventing illicit drug use in adolescents: long-term follow-up data from a randomized control trial of a school population. Addictive Behavior. 2000; 5 :769–774. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cassell C. Creating the interviewer: identity work in the management research process. Qualitative Research. 2005; 5 (2):167–179. [ Google Scholar ]
Corbin J, Morse JM. The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry. 2003; 9 (3):335–354. [ Google Scholar ]
deMarrais K. Qualitative interview studies: learning through experience. In: deMarrais K, Lapan S, editors. Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 51–68. [ Google Scholar ]
Ellis C, Berger L. Their story/my story/our story: including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In: Holstein JA, Gubrium JF, editors. Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003. pp. 467–493. [ Google Scholar ]
Ferguson DL, Tetler S, Baltzer K. Meeting the challenges of multi-site, multi-researcher interpretivist research. 2009 Available at: http://www.dpu.dk/Everest/Publications .
Fernald DH, Duclos CW. Enhance your team-based qualitative research. Annals of Family Medicine. 2005; 3 :360–364. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Furlow L. Job profiling: building a winning team using behavioral assessment. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2000; 30 (3):107–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Graham H. Do her answers fit his questions? Women and the survey method. In: Gamarnikow E, Morgan D, Purvis J, Taylorson D, editors. The Public and the Private. London: Heinemann; 1983. pp. 132–147. [ Google Scholar ]
Guba EG, Lincoln YS. The evaluator as instrument. In: Guba EG, Lincoln YS, editors. Effective Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1981. pp. 128–152. [ Google Scholar ]
Guest G, MacQueen KM, editors. Handbook for Team-based Qualitative Research. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 2. New York: Routledge; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
Herriott RE, Firestone WA. Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher. 1983; 12 (2):14–19. [ Google Scholar ]
Holstein JA, Gubrium JF. The Active Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
Janesick VJ. Stretching Exercises for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Janesick VJ. Intuition and creativity: a pas de deux for qualitative researchers. Qualitative Inquiry. 2001; 7 (5):531–540. [ Google Scholar ]
MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods. 1999; 10 :31–36. [ Google Scholar ]
Mallozzi CA. Voicing the interview: a researcher’s exploration on a platform of empathy. Qualitative Inquiry. 2009; 15 (6):1042–1060. [ Google Scholar ]
Matteson SM, Lincoln YS. Using multiple interviewers in qualitative research studies: the influence of ethic of care behaviors in research interview settings. Qualitative Inquiry. 2009; 15 (8):659–674. [ Google Scholar ]
Maxwell JA. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Merriam SB. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Miller-Day M, Pezalla A, Pettigrew J, Krieger J, Colby M, Hecht ML. The possibilities and pitfalls of team-based qualitative research. Paper presented at the Qualitative Inquiry in the Caribbean International Conference; October; Kingston 5, Jamaica. 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
National Center for Education Statistics. Identification of rural locales. n.d Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp .
Oakley A. Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms? In: Roberts H, editor. Doing Feminist Research. New York: Routledge; 1981. pp. 30–61. [ Google Scholar ]
Ohio Department of Education. Data for free and reduced price meal eligibility (MR81) 2010 Available at: http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=828&ContentID=13197&Content=79922 .
Olesen V, Droes N, Hatton D, Chico N, Schatzman L. Analyzing together: recollections of a team approach. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analyzing Qualitative Data. New York: Routledge; 1994. pp. 111–128. [ Google Scholar ]
Owens EO. Conversational space and participant shame in interviewing. Qualitative Inquiry. 2006; 12 (6):1160–1179. [ Google Scholar ]
Pillow WS. Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education. 2003; 16 :175–196. [ Google Scholar ]
Pitts M, Miller-Day M. Upward turning points and positive rapport development across time in researcher-participant relationships. Qualitative Research. 2007; 7 :177–201. [ Google Scholar ]
Rogers-Dillon RH. Hierarchical qualitative research teams: refining the methodology. Qualitative Research. 2005; 5 (4):437–454. [ Google Scholar ]
Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Sanders CB, Cuneo CJ. Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology. 2010; 44 (2):325–343. [ Google Scholar ]
Singer E, Frankel M, Glassman MB. The effect of interviewer characteristics and expectations on response. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1983; 47 :68–83. [ Google Scholar ]
Stack CB. Writing ethnography: feminist critical practice. In: Wolf DL, editor. Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. New York: Westview Press; 1995. pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
Tanggaard L. The research interview as discourses crossing swords: the researcher and apprentice on crossing roads. Qualitative Inquiry. 2007; 13 :160–176. [ Google Scholar ]
Treloar C, Graham IE. Multidisciplinary cross-national studies: a commentary on issues of collaboration, methodology, analysis, and publication. Qualitative Health Research. 2003; 13 (7):924–932. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Turato ER. Qualitative and quantitative methods in health: definitions, differences and research subjects. Revista de Saude Publica. 2005; 39 (3):507–514. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
United States Agency for International Development’s Center for Development Information and Evaluation. Conducting Key Informant Interviews. (Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS) 1996 Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABS541.pdf .
Watts JH. Emotion, empathy and exit: reflections on doing ethnographic qualitative research on sensitive topics. Medical Sociology Online. 2008; 3 (2):3–14. [ Google Scholar ]

Embedded accounting startup Layer secures $2.3M toward goal of replacing QuickBooks

Embedded finance is usually what we hear about when brands and non-financial businesses want to offer financial products or services — like banking, insurance, lending and payments — to provide a better user experience for customers.

Layer is leaning into that better user experience, but with embedded accounting. Its customers are those, like Square or Toast, working with small and medium-sized businesses to offer accounting and bookkeeping features inside their own products. These larger companies would embed Layer’s tools into their platform for small businesses to use.

SMBs can now access bookkeeping and accounting tools inside the Square or Toast platforms they use to run their business. This is instead of using a separate accounting software, like QuickBooks, to manage their business finances.

Justin Meretab, a former product leader on Square’s Banking team, started San Francisco-based Layer in 2023 with Daniel O’Neel, a former engineering leader at Wealthfront. Their goal was to create a set of APIs that allows platform customers to pass data from their small business customers to Layer. Then Layer provides connections to external bank accounts and credit cards to pull in the data and flow that into Layer’s ledger and account system. This allows the small businesses to then build a complete picture of all their financial data.

In a way, Layer is like Unit or Check, but for SMB accounting instead of banking and payroll. In fact, the company aims to completely replace legacy accounting and bookkeeping platforms like QuickBooks, Meretab told TechCrunch.

So did investors laugh them out of the room when they explained how they wanted to replace QuickBooks? Kind of.

“Many investors we’ve spoken with have told us this is a lofty goal given how much QuickBooks currently dominates the SMB accounting market,” Meretab said. “However, they also agree with our core belief that there’s been a fundamental shift in how SMBs run their businesses that now makes it possible to disrupt QuickBooks’ moat.”

The main accounting dashboard SMBs see when accessing Layer's embedded accounting software within their existing SMB platforms.

Meretab went on to explain that over the last few years, platforms like Square, Toast and Shopify became the hubs where SMBs run their businesses. These platforms have built deep relationships with those customers, and as a result, increasingly help them manage all of their day to day operations.

Meretab was at Square for six years and heard from customers that they wanted to do their accounting directly within these platforms instead of in separate tools. He and O’Neel spoke to potential customers and learned it would be challenging to build that kind of embedded accounting feature internally, so they did it.

Layer is not alone here. There are some companies doing embedded accounting for SMBs, like Hurdlr and Fiskl. However, Meretab said Layer differentiates itself by focusing on building comprehensive accounting products without making customers do a lot of work themselves, or without them even needing to understand how accounting works.

The company has a small set of early customers, four in fact, that have launched their own SMB accounting products embedded within their platforms. Customers serve a wide range of SMB industries, from truck drivers to medical spas, and collectively work with over 100,000 small businesses.

“One surprise has been that many SMB users tell us our embedded accounting views are actually the first time they’ve ever seen a clear profit and loss view of their business,” Meretab said. “Many tried to use separate accounting software but found it too complicated or difficult to keep in sync with their main operational software.”

Layer’s different approach has also attracted investors. Better Tomorrow Ventures led a $2.3 million pre-seed investment into the company and was joined by a group of executives at companies, including Square, Plaid, Unit and Check.

The company plans to deploy the new funding into expanding its services to additional small business software platforms this year. It will also expand its team of four across engineering and business operations roles.

“Over the course of this year, our goal is to grow customers significantly, like triple the number of customers, and scale revenue,” Meretab said.

Embedded finance is having a moment

More TechCrunch

Get the industry’s biggest tech news, techcrunch daily news.

Every weekday and Sunday, you can get the best of TechCrunch’s coverage.

Startups Weekly

Startups are the core of TechCrunch, so get our best coverage delivered weekly.

TechCrunch Fintech

The latest Fintech news and analysis, delivered every Sunday.

TechCrunch Mobility

TechCrunch Mobility is your destination for transportation news and insight.

UK opens office in San Francisco to tackle AI risk

Ahead of the AI safety summit kicking off in Seoul, South Korea later this week, its co-host the United Kingdom is expanding its own efforts in the field. The AI…

Why companies are turning to internal hackathons

Companies are always looking for an edge, and searching for ways to encourage their employees to innovate. One way to do that is by running an internal hackathon around a…

I’m rooting for Melinda French Gates to fix tech’s broken ‘brilliant jerk’ culture

Women in tech still face a shocking level of mistreatment at work. Melinda French Gates is one of the few working to change that.

Blue Origin successfully launches its first crewed mission since 2022

Blue Origin has successfully completed its NS-25 mission, resuming crewed flights for the first time in nearly two years. The mission brought six tourist crew members to the edge of…

Hollywood agency CAA aims to help stars manage their own AI likenesses

Creative Artists Agency (CAA), one of the top entertainment and sports talent agencies, is hoping to be at the forefront of AI protection services for celebrities in Hollywood. With many…

Expedia says two execs dismissed after ‘violation of company policy’

Expedia says Rathi Murthy and Sreenivas Rachamadugu, respectively its CTO and senior vice president of core services product & engineering, are no longer employed at the travel booking company. In…

OpenAI and Google lay out their competing AI visions

Welcome back to TechCrunch’s Week in Review. This week had two major events from OpenAI and Google. OpenAI’s spring update event saw the reveal of its new model, GPT-4o, which…

With AI startups booming, nap pods and Silicon Valley hustle culture are back

When Jeffrey Wang posted to X asking if anyone wanted to go in on an order of fancy-but-affordable office nap pods, he didn’t expect the post to go viral.

OpenAI created a team to control ‘superintelligent’ AI — then let it wither, source says

OpenAI’s Superalignment team, responsible for developing ways to govern and steer “superintelligent” AI systems, was promised 20% of the company’s compute resources, according to a person from that team. But…

VCs and the military are fueling self-driving startups that don’t need roads

A new crop of early-stage startups — along with some recent VC investments — illustrates a niche emerging in the autonomous vehicle technology sector. Unlike the companies bringing robotaxis to…

Deal Dive: Sagetap looks to bring enterprise software sales into the 21st century

When the founders of Sagetap, Sahil Khanna and Kevin Hughes, started working at early-stage enterprise software startups, they were surprised to find that the companies they worked at were trying…

This Week in AI: OpenAI moves away from safety

Keeping up with an industry as fast-moving as AI is a tall order. So until an AI can do it for you, here’s a handy roundup of recent stories in the world…

Adobe comes after indie game emulator Delta for copying its logo

After Apple loosened its App Store guidelines to permit game emulators, the retro game emulator Delta — an app 10 years in the making — hit the top of the…

Meta’s latest experiment borrows from BeReal’s and Snapchat’s core ideas

Meta is once again taking on its competitors by developing a feature that borrows concepts from others — in this case, BeReal and Snapchat. The company is developing a feature…

Startups Weekly: It’s the dawning of the age of AI — plus, Musk is raging against the machine

Welcome to Startups Weekly! We’ve been drowning in AI news this week, with Google’s I/O setting the pace. And Elon Musk rages against the machine.

IndieBio’s SF incubator lineup is making some wild biotech promises

IndieBio’s Bay Area incubator is about to debut its 15th cohort of biotech startups. We took special note of a few, which were making some major, bordering on ludicrous, claims…

YouTube TV’s ‘multiview’ feature is now available on Android phones and tablets

YouTube TV has announced that its multiview feature for watching four streams at once is now available on Android phones and tablets. The Android launch comes two months after YouTube…

Two Santa Cruz students uncover security bug that could let millions do their laundry for free

CSC ServiceWorks provides laundry machines to thousands of residential homes and universities, but the company ignored requests to fix a security bug.

Harness the TechCrunch Effect: Host a Side Event at Disrupt 2024

TechCrunch Disrupt 2024 is just around the corner, and the buzz is palpable. But what if we told you there’s a chance for you to not just attend, but also…

Pitch Deck Teardown: Goodcarbon’s $5.5M seed deck

Decks are all about telling a compelling story and Goodcarbon does a good job on that front. But there’s important information missing too.

Slack under attack over sneaky AI training policy

Slack is making it difficult for its customers if they want the company to stop using its data for model training.

Healthcare company WebTPA discloses breach affecting 2.5 million people

A Texas-based company that provides health insurance and benefit plans disclosed a data breach affecting almost 2.5 million people, some of whom had their Social Security number stolen. WebTPA said…

Microsoft dodges UK antitrust scrutiny over its Mistral AI stake

Microsoft won’t be facing antitrust scrutiny in the U.K. over its recent investment into French AI startup Mistral AI.

Embedded finance is still trendy as accounting automation startup Ember partners with HSBC UK

Ember has partnered with HSBC in the U.K. so that the bank’s business customers can access Ember’s services from their online accounts.

Kudos lands $10M for an AI smart wallet that picks the best credit card for purchases

Kudos uses AI to figure out consumer spending habits so it can then provide more personalized financial advice, like maximizing rewards and utilizing credit effectively.

EU warns Microsoft it could be fined billions over missing GenAI risk info

The EU’s warning comes after Microsoft failed to respond to a legally binding request for information that focused on its generative AI tools.

A US Trustee wants troubled fintech Synapse to be liquidated via Chapter 7 bankruptcy, cites ‘gross mismanagement’

The prospects for troubled banking-as-a-service startup Synapse have gone from bad to worse this week after a United States Trustee filed an emergency motion on Wednesday. The trustee is asking…

Seraphim’s latest space accelerator welcomes nine companies

U.K.-based Seraphim Space is spinning up its 13th accelerator program, with nine participating companies working on a range of tech from propulsion to in-space manufacturing and space situational awareness. The…

OpenAI inks deal to train AI on Reddit data

OpenAI has reached a deal with Reddit to use the social news site’s data for training AI models. In a blog post on OpenAI’s press relations site, the company said…

X pushes more users to Communities

X users will now be able to discover posts from new Communities that are trending directly from an Explore tab within the section.

IMAGES

Appendix C: Example Interview Instrument(REVV)
using interviews as research instruments
Developing Research Instruments: Surveys and Interviews
(PDF) INTERVIEW: A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCHERS
Summary of Interview Instruments
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT: Interview Process

VIDEO

Interview
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS FOR QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Developing the Research Instrument/Types and Validation
Job Interview? RESEARCH The Company Website and Recent News
Research topics| PhD interview| Research proposal| UGC NET
Clinical Research Coordinator Interview Questions and Answers for 2024

COMMENTS

Types of Interviews in Research
There are several types of interviews, often differentiated by their level of structure. Structured interviews have predetermined questions asked in a predetermined order. Unstructured interviews are more free-flowing. Semi-structured interviews fall in between. Interviews are commonly used in market research, social science, and ethnographic ...
(PDF) QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS: THE MOST ...
University of Cape Coast. [email protected], 0246502881. Abstract. Deciding on the appropriate data collection instrument to use in capturing the needed. data to address a research problem as ...
Chapter 11. Interviewing
Introduction. Interviewing people is at the heart of qualitative research. It is not merely a way to collect data but an intrinsically rewarding activity—an interaction between two people that holds the potential for greater understanding and interpersonal development. Unlike many of our daily interactions with others that are fairly shallow ...
Chapter 13: Interviews
What are interviews? An interviewing method is the most commonly used data collection technique in qualitative research. 1 The purpose of an interview is to explore the experiences, understandings, opinions and motivations of research participants. 2 Interviews are conducted one-on-one with the researcher and the participant. Interviews are most appropriate when seeking to understand a ...
(PDF) How to Conduct an Effective Interview; A Guide to Interview
Vancouver, Canada. Abstract. Interviews are one of the most promising ways of collecting qualitative data throug h establishment of a. communication between r esearcher and the interviewee. Re ...
PDF Guide to Interview Guides and Interviewing
The Instrument: Operationalizing your research question Take your research question and ask yourself: What kind of evidence do I need to answer my research question? Interviews are good at: Understanding your respondent's subjective experiences Understanding what your respondent think Understanding your respondent thinks about what other people do
Research Methods Guide: Interview Research
Develop an interview guide. Introduce yourself and explain the aim of the interview. Devise your questions so interviewees can help answer your research question. Have a sequence to your questions / topics by grouping them in themes. Make sure you can easily move back and forth between questions / topics. Make sure your questions are clear and ...
Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation
Interviewing. This is the most common format of data collection in qualitative research. According to Oakley, qualitative interview is a type of framework in which the practices and standards be not only recorded, but also achieved, challenged and as well as reinforced.[] As no research interview lacks structure[] most of the qualitative research interviews are either semi-structured, lightly ...
PDF Structured Methods: Interviews, Questionnaires and Observation
182 DOING RESEARCH Learning how to design and use structured interviews, questionnaires and observation instruments is an important skill for research-ers. Such survey instruments can be used in many types of research, from case study, to cross-sectional survey, to experiment. A study of this sort can involve anything from a short
Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews
Interviews should not be conceived as informal chats with interviewees; instead they are data-collection instruments which can be used to penetrate a number of research questions. Consequently, given the emerging position of interviews in medical education research, we identify the need to articulate 12 tips for conducting qualitative research ...
Using interviews as research instruments
Most importantly, semi-structured interview questions must be based on the main aim and objectives of the study (Jamshed, 2014). This approach allows for a more in-depth exploration of the ...
PDF Interview as a Method for Qualitative Research
Definitions. The qualitative research interview seeks to describe and the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects. The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say. (Kvale,1996) participant's experiences. The interviewer can information around the topic.
Getting more out of interviews. Understanding interviewees' accounts in
Interviewing is a common data-gathering instrument used by social scientists to expand their understanding of how humans perceive their social worlds and how they act within them. Nonetheless, the interpretation of interviews is seen as problematic if researchers only present selected instances of interview passages as insights about a research ...
LibGuides: Research Methodologies: Research Instruments
There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research: Interviews (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that ...
PDF Research Instrument Examples
What is a Research Instrument? A Research Instrument is a tool used to collect, measure, and analyze data related to your research interests. These tools are most commonly used in health sciences, social sciences, and education to assess patients, clients, students, teachers, staff, etc. A research instrument can include interviews, tests,
Types of Interviews in Research and Methods
There are more types of interviews than most people think. An interview is generally a qualitative research technique that involves asking open-ended questions to converse with respondents and collect elicit data about a subject.. The interviewer, in most cases, is the subject matter expert who intends to understand respondent opinions in a well-planned and executed series of star questions ...
Researching the researcher-as-instrument: an exercise in interviewer
The level of researcher involvement in qualitative interviewing - indeed, the embodiment of the unique researcher as the instrument for qualitative data collection - has been widely acknowledged (e.g. Cassell, 2005; Rubin and Rubin, 2005; Turato, 2005).Because the researcher is the instrument in semistructured or unstructured qualitative interviews, unique researcher attributes have the ...
Using interviews as research instruments
Using interviews as research instruments. Research differs in a number of aspects but they do have some commonalities. Many facets are involved in conducting research. One very essential factor is collecting data. Data collection can be gathered from a number of sources, which include documents, the workplace, the Internet surveys, focus groups ...
Impacts of Interview as Research Instrument of Data Collection in
Abstract. This paper examined the implications of using interviews as method of. data collection in social sciences with reference to researcher's experience during. fieldwork. The paper is ...
PDF Selecting and Describing Your Research Instruments
Advisor Consultation Checklist Use the checklist below to ensure that you consulted with your advisor during the key steps in the process of selecting and describing your research instruments. 1. _____ Read this checklist. 2. _____ Made an appointment for our first meeting to discuss the instrument selection. 3.
12 Types of Interviews You May Find in a Job Search
You can interview over video for any of the interviews we've discussed. While many companies prefer Zoom for interviews, a range of videoconferencing software is available to facilitate conversations with candidates. 4. Panel interview. A panel interview takes place with more than one person, such as a hiring committee.
The Interview As a Qualitative Research Instrument
Abstract. The paper describes the interview as an essential instrument in the social field research. Therefore, the main purpose of the interview is to obtain certain information about one or more ...
Embedded accounting startup Layer secures $2.3M toward goal of
In a way, Layer is like Unit or Check, but for SMB accounting instead of banking and payroll. In fact, the company aims to completely replace legacy accounting and bookkeeping platforms like ...
USDA
Access the portal of NASS, the official source of agricultural data and statistics in the US, and explore various reports and products.
Research Instruments: a Questionnaire and An Interview Guide Used to
research instruments: a questionnaire and an interview guide used to investigate the implementation of higher education objectives and the attainment of cameroon's vision 2035 June 2021 DOI: 10. ...