structured interviews in sociological research

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Structured Interviews in Social Research

Structured interviews are a standardised way of collecting data typically using closed, pre-coded surveys.

Table of Contents

Last Updated on September 26, 2023 by Karl Thompson

A structured interview is where interviewers ask pre-written questions to candidates in a standardised way, following an interview schedule. As far as possible the interviewer asks the same questions in the same order and the same way to all candidates. 

(An exception to this is filter questions in which case the interviewer may skip sub-questions if a negative response is provided). 

Answers to structured interviews are usually closed, or pre-coded, and the interviewer ticks the appropriate box according to the respondents’ answers. However some structured interviews may be open ended in which case the interviewer writes in the answers for the respondent.

Social surveys are the main context in which researchers will conduct structured interviews.

This post covers:

• the advantages of structured interviews
• the different contexts in which they take place (phone and computer assisted).
• the stages of conducting them: from knowing the schedule to leaving!
• their limitations.

Advantages of Structured Interviews

The main advantage of structured interviews is that they promote standardisation in both the processes of asking questions and recording answers.

This reduces bias and error in the asking of questions and makes it easier to process respondents’ answers.

The two main advantages of structured interviews are thus:

• Reducing error due to interviewer variability.
• Increasing the accuracy and ease of data processing.

Reducing error due to interviewer variability

Structured interviews help to reduce the amount of error in data collection because they are standardised.

Variability and thus error can occur in two ways:

• Intra-interviewer variability : occurs when an interviewer is not consistent with the way they ask the questions or record the answers.
• Inter-interviewer variability : when there are more than two interviewers who are not consistent with each other in the way they ask questions or record answers.

These two sources of variability can occur together and compound the the problem of reduced validity.

The common sources of error in survey research include:

• A poorly worded question.
• The way the question is asked by the interviewer.
• Misunderstanding on the part of the respondent being interviewed.
• Memory problems on the part of the respondent.
• The way the information is recorded by the interviewer.
• The way the information is processed: coding of answers or data entry.

Because the asking of questions and recording of answers are standardised, this means any variation in answers from respondents should be due to true or real variation in the respondents answers, rather than variation arising because of differences in the interview context.

Accuracy and Ease of Data Processing

Structured interviews consist of mainly closed, pre-coded questions or fixed choice questions.

With closed-questions the respondent is given a limited choice of possible answers and is asked to select which response or responses apply to them.

The interviewer then simply ticks the appropriate box.

This limit box ticking procedure limits the scope for interviewer bias to introduce error. There is no scope for the interviewer to omit or modify anything the respondent says because they are not writing down their answer.

Another advantage with pre-coded data gained from the structured interview is that it allows for ‘automatic’ data processing.

If answers had been written down or transcribed from a recording, a researcher would have to examine this qualitative data, sort and assign the various answers to categories.

For example if a survey had produced qualitative data on what respondents thought about Brexit, the researcher might categories the range of answers into ‘for Brexit’, ‘neutral’, and ‘against Brexit’.

This process of reducing more complex and varied data into fewer and simpler ‘higher level’ categories is known as coding data , or establishing a coding frame and is necessary for quantitive analysis to take place.

Coding (whether done before or after a structured interview takes place) introduces another source or potential error. Answers may be categorised incorrectly by the researchers. The researchers may categorise answers differently to how the respondents themselves would have categorised their answers.

There are two sources of error in recording data:

• Intra-rater-variability : where the person applying the coding is inconsistent in the way they apply the rules of assigning answers to categories.
• Inter-rater-variability : where two different raters apply the rules of assigning answers to categories differently.

If either or both of the above occur then variability in responses will be due to error rather than true variability in the responses.

The closed question survey/ interview avoids the above problem because respondents assign themselves to categories, simply by picking an option and the interviewer ticking a box.

There is very little opportunity with pre-coded interviews for interviewers or analysers to misinterpret or miss-assign respondents’ answers to the wrong categories.

Structured Interview Contexts

Structured interviews tend to be done when there is only one respondent. Group interviews are usually more qualitative because they dynamics of having two ore more respondents present mean answers tend to be more complex, and so tick-box answers are not usually sufficient to get valid data.

Besides the face to face interview, there are two particular contexts which are common with structured interviewing: telephone interviewing and computer assisted interviewing. (These are not mutually exclusive).

Telephone interviewing

Telephone interviews are very common with market research companies, and opinion polling companies such as YouGov. They are used less often by academic researchers but an exception to this was during the Covid-19 Pandemic when many studies which would usually rely on in-person interviews had to be carried out over the phone.

The advantages of telephone interviews

The advantages of telephone interviews compared to face to face interviews the advantages of telephone interviews are:

• Telephone interviews are cheaper and quicker to administer because there is no travel time or costs involved in accessing the respondents. The more dispersed the research sample is geographically the larger the advantage.
• Telephone interviews are easier to supervise than face to face interviews. You can have one supervisor in a room with several phone interviewers. Interviewers can be recorded and monitored, although care has to be taken with GDPR.
• Telephone interviews reduce bias due to the personal characteristics of the interviewers. It is much more difficult to tell what the class background or ethnicity or the interviewer is over the phone, for example.

The limitations of phone interviews

• People without phones cannot be part of the sample.
• Call screening with mobile phones has greatly reduced the response rate of phone surveys.
• Respondents with hearing impediments will find phone interviews more difficult.
• The length of a phone interview generally can’t be sustained over 20-25 minutes.
• There is a general belief that telephone interviews achieve lower response rates than face to face interviews.
• There is some evidence that phone interviews are less useful when dealing with sensitive topics but the data is not clear cut.
• There may. be validity problems because telephone interviews do not allow for observation. For example an interviewer cannot observe if a respondent is confused by a question.
• In cases where researchers need specific types of people, telephone interviews do not allow us to check if the correct types of people are actually those being interviewed.

Computer assisted Interviewing 

With computer assisted interviewing interviews questions are pre-written and appear on the computer screen. Interviewers follow the instructions and read out questions in order and key in the respondents’ answers, either as open or closed responses. 

There are two main types of Computer Assisted Interviewing:

• CAPI – Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing. 
• CATI – Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing.

Most telephone interviews today are Computer Assisted. There are several survey software packages that allow for the construction of effective surveys with analytics tools for data analysis. 

They are less popular for personal interviews but have been growing in popularity. 

CATI and CAPI are more common among commercial survey organisations such as IPSOS but are used less in academic research conducted by universities. 

The advantages of computer assisted interviewing

CAPI are very useful for filter questions as the software can skip to the next question if the previous one isn’t relevant. This reduces the likelihood of the interviewer asking irrelevant questions or missing out questions. 

They are also useful for prompt-questions as flash cards can be generated on the screen and shown to the respondents as required. This should mean respondents are more likely to see the flash-cards in the same way as there is no possibility for the researcher to arrange them in a different order for different respondents, as might be the case with physical flashcards. 

Another advantage of computer assisted interviewing is automatic storage on the computer or cloud upload which means there is no need to scan paper interview sheets or enter the data manually at a later date. 

Thus Computer Assisted Interviews should increase the level of standardisation and reduce the amount of variability error introduced by the interviewer. 

The disadvantages of Computer Assisted Interviewing:

• They may create a sense of distance and disconnect between the interviewer and respondents. 
• Miskeying may result in the interviewer entering incorrect data, and they are less likely to realise this than with paper interviews. 
• Interviewers need to be comfortable with the technology.

Conducting Structured Interviews 

The procedures involved with conducting an effective structure interview include:

• Knowing the interview schedule
• Gaining access 

Introducing the research 

• Establishing rapport 
• Asking questions and recording answers 
• Leaving the interview.

The processes above are specifically in relation to structured interviews, but will also apply to semi-structure interviews.

The interview schedule 

An interview schedule is the list of questions in order, with relevant instructions about how the questions are to be asked. Before conducting an interview, the interviewer should know the interview schedule inside out. 

Interviews can be stressful and pressure can cause interviewers to not follow standardised procedures. For example, interviewers may ask questions in the wrong order or miss questions out. 

When several interviewers are involved in the research process it is especially important that all of them know the interview schedule to ensure questions are asked in a standardised way. 

Gaining access

Interviews are the interface between the research and the respondents and are thus a crucial link in ensuring a good response rate. In order to gain access interviews need to:

• Be prepared to keep calling back with telephone interviews. Keep in mind the most likely times to get a response. 
• Be self-assured and confident. 
• Reassure people that you are not a salesperson, but doing research for a deeper purpose. 
• Dress appropriately. 
• Be prepared to be flexible with time: finding a time that fits the respondent if first contact isn’t convenient. 

Respondents need to be provided with a rationale explaining the purposes of the research and why they are giving up their time to take part. 

The introductory rationale may be written down or spoken. A written rationale may be sent out to prospective respondents in advance of the research taking place, as is the case with those selected to take part in the British Social Attitudes survey. A verbal rationale is employed with street-based market research, cold-calling telephone surveys and may also be reiterated during house to house surveys. 

An effective introductory statement can be crucial in getting respondents to take part. 

What should an introductory statement for social research include?

• Make clear the identity of the interviewer.
• Identify the agency which is conducting the research: for example a university or business. 
• Include details of how the research is being funded. 
• Indicate the broader purpose of the research in broad terms: what are the overall aims?
• Give an indication of the kind of data that will be collected. 
• Make it clear that participation is voluntary. 
• Make it clear that data will be anonymised and that the respondent will not be identified in any way, by data being analysed at an aggregate level. 
• Provide reassurance about the confidentiality of information. 
• Provide a respondent with the opportunity to ask questions. 

Establishing rapport with structured interviews

Rapport is what makes the respondent feel as if they want to cooperate with the researcher and take part in the research. Without rapport being established respondents may either not agree to take part or terminate the interview half way through! 

Rapport can be established through visual cues of friendliness such as positive body language, listening and good eye contact. 

However with structured interviews, establishing rapport is a delicate balancing act as it is crucial for the interviewers be as objective as possible and not get too close to the respondents.

Rapport can be achieved by being friendly with the interviewee, although interviewers shouldn’t take this too far. Too much friendliness can result in the interview taking too long and the interviewee getting bored. 

Too much rapport can also result in the respondent providing socially desirable answers. 

Asking Questions and Recording Answers 

With structured interviews it is important that researchers strive to ask the same questions in the same way to all respondents. They should ask questions as written in order to minimise error. 

Experiments in question-wording suggest that even minor variations in wording can influence replies. 

Interviewers may be tempted to deviate from the schedule because they feel awkward asking some questions to particular people, but training can help with this and make it more likely that standardisation is kept in place. 

Where recording answers is concerned, bias is far less likely with pre-coded answers. 

PROVIDING Clear instructions 

Interviews need to follow clear instructions through the progress of the interview. This is important if an interview schedule includes filter questions. 

Filter questions require the interviewer to ask questions of some respondents but not to others. Filler questions are usually indented on an interview schedule. 

For example: 

• Did you vote in the last general election…?  YES / NO 

1a (to be asked if respondent answered yes to Q1)

Which of the following political parties did you vote for? Conservatives/ Labour/ Lib Dems/ The Green Party/ Other. 

The risk of not following instructions is that the respondent may be asked questions that are irrelevant to them, which may be irritating. 

Question order

Researchers should stick to the question order on the survey. 

Leapfrogging questions may result in questions skipped not being asked because the researcher could forget to go back to them. 

Changing the question order may also lead to variability in replies because questions previously asked may affect how respondents answer questions later on in the survey. 

Three specific examples demonstrate why question order matters:

People are less likely to respond that taxes should be lowered if they are asked questions about government spending beforehand. 

In victim surveys if people are asked about their attitudes to crime first they are more likely to report that they have been a victim of crime in later questions. 

One question in the 1988 British Crime Survey asked the following question:

‘Taking everything into account, would you say the police in this area do a good job or a poor job? 

For all respondents this question appeared early on, but due to an admin error the question appeared twice in some surveys, and for those who answered the question twice:

• 66% gave the same response
• 22% gave a more positive response
• 12% gave a less positive response. 

The fact that only two thirds of respondents gave the same response twice clearly indicates that the effect of question order can be huge. 

One theory for the change is that the survey was about crime and as respondents thought more in-depth about crime as the interview progressed, 22% felt more favourable to the police and 13% less favourable, this would have varied with their own experiences. 

Rules for ordering questions in social surveys

• Early questions should be clearly related to the topic of the research about which the respondent has already been informed. This is so the respondent immediately feels like the questions are relevant. 
• Questions about age/ ethnicity/ gender etc. should not be asked at the beginning of the interview 
• Sensitive questions should be left for later.
• With a longer questionnaire, questions should be grouped into sections to break up the interview. 
• Within each subgroup general questions should precede specific ones. 
• Opinions and attitudes questions should precede questions about behaviour and knowledge. Questions about the later are less likely to be influenced by question order. 
• If a respondent has already answered a later question in the course of answering a previous one, that later question should still be asked. 

Probing questions in structured interviews 

Probing may be required in structured interviews when 

• respondents do not understand the question and either ask for or it is clear that they need more information to provide an answer. 
• The respondent does not provide a sufficient answer and needs to be probed for more information. 

The problem with the interviewer asking additional probing questions is that they introduce researcher-led variability into the interview context. 

Tactics for effective probing in structured interviews:

• Employ standardised probes . These work well when open ended answers are required. Examples of standardised probes include: ‘Could you say a little more about that?’ or ‘are there any other reasons why you think that?’. 
• If a response does not allow for a pre-existing box to be ticked In a closed ended survey the interviewer could r epeat the available options . 
• If the response requires a number rather than something like ‘often’ the researcher should just persist with asking the question .  They shouldn’t try and second guess a number!

Prompting occurs when the interviewer suggests a possible answer to a question to the respondent. This is effectively what happens with a closed question survey or interview: the options are the prompts. The important thing is that the prompts are the same for all the respondents and asked in the same way. 

During face to face interviews there may be times when it is better for researchers to use show cards (or flash cards) to display the answers rather than say them. 

Three contexts in which flashcards are better:

• When there is a long list of possible answers. For example if asking respondents about which newspapers they read, it would be easier to show them a list rather than reading them out!
• With Likert Scales, ranked for 1-5 for example, it would be easier to have a showcard with 1-5 and the respondent can point to it, rather than reading out ‘1,2,3,4,5’. 
• With some sensitive details such as income, respondents might feel more comfortable if they are shown income bands with letters attached, then they can say the letter. This allows the respondent to not state what their income is out loud. 

Leaving the Interview 

On leaving the interview thank the respondent for taking part. 

Researchers should not engage in further communication about the purpose of the research at this point beyond the standard introductory statement. To do so means this respondent may divulge further information to other respondents yet to take part, possibly biassing their responses.

Problems with structured interviews 

Four problems with structured interviews include:

• the characteristics of the interviewer interfering with the results.
• Response sets resulting in reduced validity (acquiescence and social desirability).
• The problem of lack of shared meaning.
• The feminist critique of the unequal power relationship between interviewer and respondent.

Interviewer characteristics

The characteristics of the interviewer such as their gender or ethnicity may affect the responses a respondent gives. For example, a respondent may be less likely to open up on sensitive issues with someone who is a different gender to them.  

Response Sets 

This is where respondents reply to a series of questions in a consistent way but one that is irrelevant to the concept being measured. 

This is a particular problem when respondents are answering several Likert Scale questions in a row. 

Two of the most prominent types of response set are ‘acquiescence’ and ‘social desirability bias’ 

Acquiescence 

Acquiescence refers to a tendency of some respondents to consistently agree or disagree with a set of questions. They may do this because it is quicker for them to get through the interview. This is known as satisficing. 

Satisficing is where respondents reduce the amount of effort required to answer a question. They settle for an answer that is satisfactory rather than making the effort to generate the most accurate answer. 

Examples of satisficing include:

• Agreeing with yes statements or ‘yeasaying’.
• Opting for middle point answers on scales.
• Not considering the full-range of answers in a range of closed questions, for example picking the first or last answers. 

The opposite of satisficing is optimising. Optimising is where respondents expend effort to arrive at the best and most appropriate answer to a question. 

It is possible to weed out respondents who do this by ensuring there is a mix of positive and negative sentiment in a batch of Likert questions. 

For example you may have a batch of three questions designed to measure attitudes towards Rishi Sunak’s performance as Primeminister.

If you have two scales where ‘5’ is positive and one where 5 is Negative, for example:

• Rishi Sunak is an effective leader 1.2.3.4.5
• Rishi Sunak has managed the economy well 1.2.3.4.5 
• Rishi Sunak is NOT to be trusted 1.2.3.4.5  

If someone is acquiescing without thinking about their answers, they are likely to circle all 5s, which wouldn’t make sense. Hence we could disregard this response and maybe even the entire survey from this individual. 

Social desirability bias 

Socially desirable behaviours and attitudes tend to be over-reported. This can especially be the case for sensitive questions.

Strategies for reducing social interviews bias

• Use self-completion forms rather than interviewers. 
• Soften the question for example ‘even the calmest of car drivers sometimes lose their temper when driving, has this ever happened to you?

The problem of meaning 

Structured surveys and interviews assume that respondents share the same meanings for terms as the interviewers. 

However, from an interpretivist perspective interviewer and respondent may not share the same meanings. Respondents may be ticking boxes but mean different things to what the interviewer thinks they mean. 

The issue of meaning is side-stepped in structured interviews. 

The feminist critique of structured interviews 

The structure of the interview epitomises the asymmetrical relationship between researcher and respondent. This is a critique made of all quantitative research. 

The researcher extracts information from the respondent and gives little or nothing in return. 

Interviewers are even advised not to get too familiar with respondents as giving away too much information may bias the results. 

Interviewers should refrain from expressing their opinions, presenting any personal information and engaging in off-topic chatter. All of this is very impersonal. 

This means that structured interviews are probably not appropriate for very sensitive topics that involve a more personal touch. For example with domestic violence, unstructured interviews which aim to explore the nature of violence have revealed higher levels of violence than structured interviews such as the Crime Survey of England and Wales.

Sources and signposting

Structured interviews are relevant to the social research methods module within A-level sociology.

This post was adapted from Bryman, A (2016) Social Research Methods.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 15 September 2022

Interviews in the social sciences

• Eleanor Knott   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9131-3939 1 ,
• Aliya Hamid Rao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0674-4206 1 ,
• Kate Summers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9964-0259 1 &
• Chana Teeger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5046-8280 1  

Nature Reviews Methods Primers volume  2 , Article number:  73 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

708k Accesses

49 Citations

42 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Interdisciplinary studies

In-depth interviews are a versatile form of qualitative data collection used by researchers across the social sciences. They allow individuals to explain, in their own words, how they understand and interpret the world around them. Interviews represent a deceptively familiar social encounter in which people interact by asking and answering questions. They are, however, a very particular type of conversation, guided by the researcher and used for specific ends. This dynamic introduces a range of methodological, analytical and ethical challenges, for novice researchers in particular. In this Primer, we focus on the stages and challenges of designing and conducting an interview project and analysing data from it, as well as strategies to overcome such challenges.

Similar content being viewed by others

The fundamental importance of method to theory

How ‘going online’ mediates the challenges of policy elite interviews

Participatory action research

Introduction.

In-depth interviews are a qualitative research method that follow a deceptively familiar logic of human interaction: they are conversations where people talk with each other, interact and pose and answer questions 1 . An interview is a specific type of interaction in which — usually and predominantly — a researcher asks questions about someone’s life experience, opinions, dreams, fears and hopes and the interview participant answers the questions 1 .

Interviews will often be used as a standalone method or combined with other qualitative methods, such as focus groups or ethnography, or quantitative methods, such as surveys or experiments. Although interviewing is a frequently used method, it should not be viewed as an easy default for qualitative researchers 2 . Interviews are also not suited to answering all qualitative research questions, but instead have specific strengths that should guide whether or not they are deployed in a research project. Whereas ethnography might be better suited to trying to observe what people do, interviews provide a space for extended conversations that allow the researcher insights into how people think and what they believe. Quantitative surveys also give these kinds of insights, but they use pre-determined questions and scales, privileging breadth over depth and often overlooking harder-to-reach participants.

In-depth interviews can take many different shapes and forms, often with more than one participant or researcher. For example, interviews might be highly structured (using an almost survey-like interview guide), entirely unstructured (taking a narrative and free-flowing approach) or semi-structured (using a topic guide ). Researchers might combine these approaches within a single project depending on the purpose of the interview and the characteristics of the participant. Whatever form the interview takes, researchers should be mindful of the dynamics between interviewer and participant and factor these in at all stages of the project.

In this Primer, we focus on the most common type of interview: one researcher taking a semi-structured approach to interviewing one participant using a topic guide. Focusing on how to plan research using interviews, we discuss the necessary stages of data collection. We also discuss the stages and thought-process behind analysing interview material to ensure that the richness and interpretability of interview material is maintained and communicated to readers. The Primer also tracks innovations in interview methods and discusses the developments we expect over the next 5–10 years.

We wrote this Primer as researchers from sociology, social policy and political science. We note our disciplinary background because we acknowledge that there are disciplinary differences in how interviews are approached and understood as a method.

Experimentation

Here we address research design considerations and data collection issues focusing on topic guide construction and other pragmatics of the interview. We also explore issues of ethics and reflexivity that are crucial throughout the research project.

Research design

Participant selection.

Participants can be selected and recruited in various ways for in-depth interview studies. The researcher must first decide what defines the people or social groups being studied. Often, this means moving from an abstract theoretical research question to a more precise empirical one. For example, the researcher might be interested in how people talk about race in contexts of diversity. Empirical settings in which this issue could be studied could include schools, workplaces or adoption agencies. The best research designs should clearly explain why the particular setting was chosen. Often there are both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for choosing to study a particular group of people at a specific time and place 3 . Intrinsic motivations relate to the fact that the research is focused on an important specific social phenomenon that has been understudied. Extrinsic motivations speak to the broader theoretical research questions and explain why the case at hand is a good one through which to address them empirically.

Next, the researcher needs to decide which types of people they would like to interview. This decision amounts to delineating the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. The criteria might be based on demographic variables, like race or gender, but they may also be context-specific, for example, years of experience in an organization. These should be decided based on the research goals. Researchers should be clear about what characteristics would make an individual a candidate for inclusion in the study (and what would exclude them).

The next step is to identify and recruit the study’s sample . Usually, many more people fit the inclusion criteria than can be interviewed. In cases where lists of potential participants are available, the researcher might want to employ stratified sampling , dividing the list by characteristics of interest before sampling.

When there are no lists, researchers will often employ purposive sampling . Many researchers consider purposive sampling the most useful mode for interview-based research since the number of interviews to be conducted is too small to aim to be statistically representative 4 . Instead, the aim is not breadth, via representativeness, but depth via rich insights about a set of participants. In addition to purposive sampling, researchers often use snowball sampling . Both purposive and snowball sampling can be combined with quota sampling . All three types of sampling aim to ensure a variety of perspectives within the confines of a research project. A goal for in-depth interview studies can be to sample for range, being mindful of recruiting a diversity of participants fitting the inclusion criteria.

Study design

The total number of interviews depends on many factors, including the population studied, whether comparisons are to be made and the duration of interviews. Studies that rely on quota sampling where explicit comparisons are made between groups will require a larger number of interviews than studies focused on one group only. Studies where participants are interviewed over several hours, days or even repeatedly across years will tend to have fewer participants than those that entail a one-off engagement.

Researchers often stop interviewing when new interviews confirm findings from earlier interviews with no new or surprising insights (saturation) 4 , 5 , 6 . As a criterion for research design, saturation assumes that data collection and analysis are happening in tandem and that researchers will stop collecting new data once there is no new information emerging from the interviews. This is not always possible. Researchers rarely have time for systematic data analysis during data collection and they often need to specify their sample in funding proposals prior to data collection. As a result, researchers often draw on existing reports of saturation to estimate a sample size prior to data collection. These suggest between 12 and 20 interviews per category of participant (although researchers have reported saturation with samples that are both smaller and larger than this) 7 , 8 , 9 . The idea of saturation has been critiqued by many qualitative researchers because it assumes that meaning inheres in the data, waiting to be discovered — and confirmed — once saturation has been reached 7 . In-depth interview data are often multivalent and can give rise to different interpretations. The important consideration is, therefore, not merely how many participants are interviewed, but whether one’s research design allows for collecting rich and textured data that provide insight into participants’ understandings, accounts, perceptions and interpretations.

Sometimes, researchers will conduct interviews with more than one participant at a time. Researchers should consider the benefits and shortcomings of such an approach. Joint interviews may, for example, give researchers insight into how caregivers agree or debate childrearing decisions. At the same time, they may be less adaptive to exploring aspects of caregiving that participants may not wish to disclose to each other. In other cases, there may be more than one person interviewing each participant, such as when an interpreter is used, and so it is important to consider during the research design phase how this might shape the dynamics of the interview.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews are typically organized around a topic guide comprised of an ordered set of broad topics (usually 3–5). Each topic includes a set of questions that form the basis of the discussion between the researcher and participant (Fig.  1 ). These topics are organized around key concepts that the researcher has identified (for example, through a close study of prior research, or perhaps through piloting a small, exploratory study) 5 .

a | Elaborated topics the researcher wants to cover in the interview and example questions. b | An example topic arc. Using such an arc, one can think flexibly about the order of topics. Considering the main question for each topic will help to determine the best order for the topics. After conducting some interviews, the researcher can move topics around if a different order seems to make sense.

Topic guide

One common way to structure a topic guide is to start with relatively easy, open-ended questions (Table  1 ). Opening questions should be related to the research topic but broad and easy to answer, so that they help to ease the participant into conversation.

After these broad, opening questions, the topic guide may move into topics that speak more directly to the overarching research question. The interview questions will be accompanied by probes designed to elicit concrete details and examples from the participant (see Table  1 ).

Abstract questions are often easier for participants to answer once they have been asked more concrete questions. In our experience, for example, questions about feelings can be difficult for some participants to answer, but when following probes concerning factual experiences these questions can become less challenging. After the main themes of the topic guide have been covered, the topic guide can move onto closing questions. At this stage, participants often repeat something they have said before, although they may sometimes introduce a new topic.

Interviews are especially well suited to gaining a deeper insight into people’s experiences. Getting these insights largely depends on the participants’ willingness to talk to the researcher. We recommend designing open-ended questions that are more likely to elicit an elaborated response and extended reflection from participants rather than questions that can be answered with yes or no.

Questions should avoid foreclosing the possibility that the participant might disagree with the premise of the question. Take for example the question: “Do you support the new family-friendly policies?” This question minimizes the possibility of the participant disagreeing with the premise of this question, which assumes that the policies are ‘family-friendly’ and asks for a yes or no answer. Instead, asking more broadly how a participant feels about the specific policy being described as ‘family-friendly’ (for example, a work-from-home policy) allows them to express agreement, disagreement or impartiality and, crucially, to explain their reasoning 10 .

For an uninterrupted interview that will last between 90 and 120 minutes, the topic guide should be one to two single-spaced pages with questions and probes. Ideally, the researcher will memorize the topic guide before embarking on the first interview. It is fine to carry a printed-out copy of the topic guide but memorizing the topic guide ahead of the interviews can often make the interviewer feel well prepared in guiding the participant through the interview process.

Although the topic guide helps the researcher stay on track with the broad areas they want to cover, there is no need for the researcher to feel tied down by the topic guide. For instance, if a participant brings up a theme that the researcher intended to discuss later or a point the researcher had not anticipated, the researcher may well decide to follow the lead of the participant. The researcher’s role extends beyond simply stating the questions; it entails listening and responding, making split-second decisions about what line of inquiry to pursue and allowing the interview to proceed in unexpected directions.

Optimizing the interview

The ideal place for an interview will depend on the study and what is feasible for participants. Generally, a place where the participant and researcher can both feel relaxed, where the interview can be uninterrupted and where noise or other distractions are limited is ideal. But this may not always be possible and so the researcher needs to be prepared to adapt their plans within what is feasible (and desirable for participants).

Another key tool for the interview is a recording device (assuming that permission for recording has been given). Recording can be important to capture what the participant says verbatim. Additionally, it can allow the researcher to focus on determining what probes and follow-up questions they want to pursue rather than focusing on taking notes. Sometimes, however, a participant may not allow the researcher to record, or the recording may fail. If the interview is not recorded we suggest that the researcher takes brief notes during the interview, if feasible, and then thoroughly make notes immediately after the interview and try to remember the participant’s facial expressions, gestures and tone of voice. Not having a recording of an interview need not limit the researcher from getting analytical value from it.

As soon as possible after each interview, we recommend that the researcher write a one-page interview memo comprising three key sections. The first section should identify two to three important moments from the interview. What constitutes important is up to the researcher’s discretion 9 . The researcher should note down what happened in these moments, including the participant’s facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice and maybe even the sensory details of their surroundings. This exercise is about capturing ethnographic detail from the interview. The second part of the interview memo is the analytical section with notes on how the interview fits in with previous interviews, for example, where the participant’s responses concur or diverge from other responses. The third part consists of a methodological section where the researcher notes their perception of their relationship with the participant. The interview memo allows the researcher to think critically about their positionality and practice reflexivity — key concepts for an ethical and transparent research practice in qualitative methodology 11 , 12 .

Ethics and reflexivity

All elements of an in-depth interview can raise ethical challenges and concerns. Good ethical practice in interview studies often means going beyond the ethical procedures mandated by institutions 13 . While discussions and requirements of ethics can differ across disciplines, here we focus on the most pertinent considerations for interviews across the research process for an interdisciplinary audience.

Ethical considerations prior to interview

Before conducting interviews, researchers should consider harm minimization, informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality, and reflexivity and positionality. It is important for the researcher to develop their own ethical sensitivities and sensibilities by gaining training in interview and qualitative methods, reading methodological and field-specific texts on interviews and ethics and discussing their research plans with colleagues.

Researchers should map the potential harm to consider how this can be minimized. Primarily, researchers should consider harm from the participants’ perspective (Box  1 ). But, it is also important to consider and plan for potential harm to the researcher, research assistants, gatekeepers, future researchers and members of the wider community 14 . Even the most banal of research topics can potentially pose some form of harm to the participant, researcher and others — and the level of harm is often highly context-dependent. For example, a research project on religion in society might have very different ethical considerations in a democratic versus authoritarian research context because of how openly or not such topics can be discussed and debated 15 .

The researcher should consider how they will obtain and record informed consent (for example, written or oral), based on what makes the most sense for their research project and context 16 . Some institutions might specify how informed consent should be gained. Regardless of how consent is obtained, the participant must be made aware of the form of consent, the intentions and procedures of the interview and potential forms of harm and benefit to the participant or community before the interview commences. Moreover, the participant must agree to be interviewed before the interview commences. If, in addition to interviews, the study contains an ethnographic component, it is worth reading around this topic (see, for example, Murphy and Dingwall 17 ). Informed consent must also be gained for how the interview will be recorded before the interview commences. These practices are important to ensure the participant is contributing on a voluntary basis. It is also important to remind participants that they can withdraw their consent at any time during the interview and for a specified period after the interview (to be decided with the participant). The researcher should indicate that participants can ask for anything shared to be off the record and/or not disseminated.

In terms of anonymity and confidentiality, it is standard practice when conducting interviews to agree not to use (or even collect) participants’ names and personal details that are not pertinent to the study. Anonymizing can often be the safer option for minimizing harm to participants as it is hard to foresee all the consequences of de-anonymizing, even if participants agree. Regardless of what a researcher decides, decisions around anonymity must be agreed with participants during the process of gaining informed consent and respected following the interview.

Although not all ethical challenges can be foreseen or planned for 18 , researchers should think carefully — before the interview — about power dynamics, participant vulnerability, emotional state and interactional dynamics between interviewer and participant, even when discussing low-risk topics. Researchers may then wish to plan for potential ethical issues, for example by preparing a list of relevant organizations to which participants can be signposted. A researcher interviewing a participant about debt, for instance, might prepare in advance a list of debt advice charities, organizations and helplines that could provide further support and advice. It is important to remember that the role of an interviewer is as a researcher rather than as a social worker or counsellor because researchers may not have relevant and requisite training in these other domains.

Box 1 Mapping potential forms of harm

Social: researchers should avoid causing any relational detriment to anyone in the course of interviews, for example, by sharing information with other participants or causing interview participants to be shunned or mistreated by their community as a result of participating.

Economic: researchers should avoid causing financial detriment to anyone, for example, by expecting them to pay for transport to be interviewed or to potentially lose their job as a result of participating.

Physical: researchers should minimize the risk of anyone being exposed to violence as a result of the research both from other individuals or from authorities, including police.

Psychological: researchers should minimize the risk of causing anyone trauma (or re-traumatization) or psychological anguish as a result of the research; this includes not only the participant but importantly the researcher themselves and anyone that might read or analyse the transcripts, should they contain triggering information.

Political: researchers should minimize the risk of anyone being exposed to political detriment as a result of the research, such as retribution.

Professional/reputational: researchers should minimize the potential for reputational damage to anyone connected to the research (this includes ensuring good research practices so that any researchers involved are not harmed reputationally by being involved with the research project).

The task here is not to map exhaustively the potential forms of harm that might pertain to a particular research project (that is the researcher’s job and they should have the expertise most suited to mapping such potential harms relative to the specific project) but to demonstrate the breadth of potential forms of harm.

Ethical considerations post-interview

Researchers should consider how interview data are stored, analysed and disseminated. If participants have been offered anonymity and confidentiality, data should be stored in a way that does not compromise this. For example, researchers should consider removing names and any other unnecessary personal details from interview transcripts, password-protecting and encrypting files and using pseudonyms to label and store all interview data. It is also important to address where interview data are taken (for example, across borders in particular where interview data might be of interest to local authorities) and how this might affect the storage of interview data.

Examining how the researcher will represent participants is a paramount ethical consideration both in the planning stages of the interview study and after it has been conducted. Dissemination strategies also need to consider questions of anonymity and representation. In small communities, even if participants are given pseudonyms, it might be obvious who is being described. Anonymizing not only the names of those participating but also the research context is therefore a standard practice 19 . With particularly sensitive data or insights about the participant, it is worth considering describing participants in a more abstract way rather than as specific individuals. These practices are important both for protecting participants’ anonymity but can also affect the ability of the researcher and others to return ethically to the research context and similar contexts 20 .

Reflexivity and positionality

Reflexivity and positionality mean considering the researcher’s role and assumptions in knowledge production 13 . A key part of reflexivity is considering the power relations between the researcher and participant within the interview setting, as well as how researchers might be perceived by participants. Further, researchers need to consider how their own identities shape the kind of knowledge and assumptions they bring to the interview, including how they approach and ask questions and their analysis of interviews (Box  2 ). Reflexivity is a necessary part of developing ethical sensibility as a researcher by adapting and reflecting on how one engages with participants. Participants should not feel judged, for example, when they share information that researchers might disagree with or find objectionable. How researchers deal with uncomfortable moments or information shared by participants is at their discretion, but they should consider how they will react both ahead of time and in the moment.

Researchers can develop their reflexivity by considering how they themselves would feel being asked these interview questions or represented in this way, and then adapting their practice accordingly. There might be situations where these questions are not appropriate in that they unduly centre the researchers’ experiences and worldview. Nevertheless, these prompts can provide a useful starting point for those beginning their reflexive journey and developing an ethical sensibility.

Reflexivity and ethical sensitivities require active reflection throughout the research process. For example, researchers should take care in interview memos and their notes to consider their assumptions, potential preconceptions, worldviews and own identities prior to and after interviews (Box  2 ). Checking in with assumptions can be a way of making sure that researchers are paying close attention to their own theoretical and analytical biases and revising them in accordance with what they learn through the interviews. Researchers should return to these notes (especially when analysing interview material), to try to unpack their own effects on the research process as well as how participants positioned and engaged with them.

Box 2 Aspects to reflect on reflexively

For reflexive engagement, and understanding the power relations being co-constructed and (re)produced in interviews, it is necessary to reflect, at a minimum, on the following.

Ethnicity, race and nationality, such as how does privilege stemming from race or nationality operate between the researcher, the participant and research context (for example, a researcher from a majority community may be interviewing a member of a minority community)

Gender and sexuality, see above on ethnicity, race and nationality

Social class, and in particular the issue of middle-class bias among researchers when formulating research and interview questions

Economic security/precarity, see above on social class and thinking about the researcher’s relative privilege and the source of biases that stem from this

Educational experiences and privileges, see above

Disciplinary biases, such as how the researcher’s discipline/subfield usually approaches these questions, possibly normalizing certain assumptions that might be contested by participants and in the research context

Political and social values

Lived experiences and other dimensions of ourselves that affect and construct our identity as researchers

In this section, we discuss the next stage of an interview study, namely, analysing the interview data. Data analysis may begin while more data are being collected. Doing so allows early findings to inform the focus of further data collection, as part of an iterative process across the research project. Here, the researcher is ultimately working towards achieving coherence between the data collected and the findings produced to answer successfully the research question(s) they have set.

The two most common methods used to analyse interview material across the social sciences are thematic analysis 21 and discourse analysis 22 . Thematic analysis is a particularly useful and accessible method for those starting out in analysis of qualitative data and interview material as a method of coding data to develop and interpret themes in the data 21 . Discourse analysis is more specialized and focuses on the role of discourse in society by paying close attention to the explicit, implicit and taken-for-granted dimensions of language and power 22 , 23 . Although thematic and discourse analysis are often discussed as separate techniques, in practice researchers might flexibly combine these approaches depending on the object of analysis. For example, those intending to use discourse analysis might first conduct thematic analysis as a way to organize and systematize the data. The object and intention of analysis might differ (for example, developing themes or interrogating language), but the questions facing the researcher (such as whether to take an inductive or deductive approach to analysis) are similar.

Preparing data

Data preparation is an important step in the data analysis process. The researcher should first determine what comprises the corpus of material and in what form it will it be analysed. The former refers to whether, for example, alongside the interviews themselves, analytic memos or observational notes that may have been taken during data collection will also be directly analysed. The latter refers to decisions about how the verbal/audio interview data will be transformed into a written form, making it suitable for processes of data analysis. Typically, interview audio recordings are transcribed to produce a written transcript. It is important to note that the process of transcription is one of transformation. The verbal interview data are transformed into a written transcript through a series of decisions that the researcher must make. The researcher should consider the effect of mishearing what has been said or how choosing to punctuate a sentence in a particular way will affect the final analysis.

Box  3 shows an example transcript excerpt from an interview with a teacher conducted by Teeger as part of her study of history education in post-apartheid South Africa 24 (Box  3 ). Seeing both the questions and the responses means that the reader can contextualize what the participant (Ms Mokoena) has said. Throughout the transcript the researcher has used square brackets, for example to indicate a pause in speech, when Ms Mokoena says “it’s [pause] it’s a difficult topic”. The transcription choice made here means that we see that Ms Mokoena has taken time to pause, perhaps to search for the right words, or perhaps because she has a slight apprehension. Square brackets are also included as an overt act of communication to the reader. When Ms Mokoena says “ja”, the English translation (“yes”) of the word in Afrikaans is placed in square brackets to ensure that the reader can follow the meaning of the speech.

Decisions about what to include when transcribing will be hugely important for the direction and possibilities of analysis. Researchers should decide what they want to capture in the transcript, based on their analytic focus. From a (post)positivist perspective 25 , the researcher may be interested in the manifest content of the interview (such as what is said, not how it is said). In that case, they may choose to transcribe intelligent verbatim . From a constructivist perspective 25 , researchers may choose to record more aspects of speech (including, for example, pauses, repetitions, false starts, talking over one another) so that these features can be analysed. Those working from this perspective argue that to recognize the interactional nature of the interview setting adequately and to avoid misinterpretations, features of interaction (pauses, overlaps between speakers and so on) should be preserved in transcription and therefore in the analysis 10 . Readers interested in learning more should consult Potter and Hepburn’s summary of how to present interaction through transcription of interview data 26 .

The process of analysing semi-structured interviews might be thought of as a generative rather than an extractive enterprise. Findings do not already exist within the interview data to be discovered. Rather, researchers create something new when analysing the data by applying their analytic lens or approach to the transcripts. At a high level, there are options as to what researchers might want to glean from their interview data. They might be interested in themes, whereby they identify patterns of meaning across the dataset 21 . Alternatively, they may focus on discourse(s), looking to identify how language is used to construct meanings and therefore how language reinforces or produces aspects of the social world 27 . Alternatively, they might look at the data to understand narrative or biographical elements 28 .

A further overarching decision to make is the extent to which researchers bring predetermined framings or understandings to bear on their data, or instead begin from the data themselves to generate an analysis. One way of articulating this is the extent to which researchers take a deductive approach or an inductive approach to analysis. One example of a truly inductive approach is grounded theory, whereby the aim of the analysis is to build new theory, beginning with one’s data 6 , 29 . In practice, researchers using thematic and discourse analysis often combine deductive and inductive logics and describe their process instead as iterative (referred to also as an abductive approach ) 30 , 31 . For example, researchers may decide that they will apply a given theoretical framing, or begin with an initial analytic framework, but then refine or develop these once they begin the process of analysis.

Box 3 Excerpt of interview transcript (from Teeger 24 )

Interviewer : Maybe you could just start by talking about what it’s like to teach apartheid history.

Ms Mokoena : It’s a bit challenging. You’ve got to accommodate all the kids in the class. You’ve got to be sensitive to all the racial differences. You want to emphasize the wrongs that were done in the past but you also want to, you know, not to make kids feel like it’s their fault. So you want to use the wrongs of the past to try and unite the kids …

Interviewer : So what kind of things do you do?

Ms Mokoena : Well I normally highlight the fact that people that were struggling were not just the blacks, it was all the races. And I give examples of the people … from all walks of life, all races, and highlight how they suffered as well as a result of apartheid, particularly the whites… . What I noticed, particularly my first year of teaching apartheid, I noticed that the black kids made the others feel responsible for what happened… . I had a lot of fights…. A lot of kids started hating each other because, you know, the others are white and the others were black. And they started saying, “My mother is a domestic worker because she was never allowed an opportunity to get good education.” …

Interviewer : I didn’t see any of that now when I was observing.

Ms Mokoena : … Like I was saying I think that because of the re-emphasis of the fact that, look, everybody did suffer one way or the other, they sort of got to see that it was everybody’s struggle … . They should now get to understand that that’s why we’re called a Rainbow Nation. Not everybody agreed with apartheid and not everybody suffered. Even all the blacks, not all blacks got to feel what the others felt . So ja [yes], it’s [pause] it’s a difficult topic, ja . But I think if you get the kids to understand why we’re teaching apartheid in the first place and you show the involvement of all races in all the different sides , then I think you have managed to teach it properly. So I think because of my inexperience then — that was my first year of teaching history — so I think I — maybe I over-emphasized the suffering of the blacks versus the whites [emphasis added].

Reprinted with permission from ref. 24 , Sage Publications.

From data to codes

Coding data is a key building block shared across many approaches to data analysis. Coding is a way of organizing and describing data, but is also ultimately a way of transforming data to produce analytic insights. The basic practice of coding involves highlighting a segment of text (this may be a sentence, a clause or a longer excerpt) and assigning a label to it. The aim of the label is to communicate some sort of summary of what is in the highlighted piece of text. Coding is an iterative process, whereby researchers read and reread their transcripts, applying and refining their codes, until they have a coding frame (a set of codes) that is applied coherently across the dataset and that captures and communicates the key features of what is contained in the data as it relates to the researchers’ analytic focus.

What one codes for is entirely contingent on the focus of the research project and the choices the researcher makes about the approach to analysis. At first, one might apply descriptive codes, summarizing what is contained in the interviews. It is rarely desirable to stop at this point, however, because coding is a tool to move from describing the data to interpreting the data. Suppose the researcher is pursuing some version of thematic analysis. In that case, it might be that the objects of coding are aspects of reported action, emotions, opinions, norms, relationships, routines, agreement/disagreement and change over time. A discourse analysis might instead code for different types of speech acts, tropes, linguistic or rhetorical devices. Multiple types of code might be generated within the same research project. What is important is that researchers are aware of the choices they are making in terms of what they are coding for. Moreover, through the process of refinement, the aim is to produce a set of discrete codes — in which codes are conceptually distinct, as opposed to overlapping. By using the same codes across the dataset, the researcher can capture commonalities across the interviews. This process of refinement involves relabelling codes and reorganizing how and where they are applied in the dataset.

From coding to analysis and writing

Data analysis is also an iterative process in which researchers move closer to and further away from the data. As they move away from the data, they synthesize their findings, thus honing and articulating their analytic insights. As they move closer to the data, they ground these insights in what is contained in the interviews. The link should not be broken between the data themselves and higher-order conceptual insights or claims being made. Researchers must be able to show evidence for their claims in the data. Figure  2 summarizes this iterative process and suggests the sorts of activities involved at each stage more concretely.

As well as going through steps 1 to 6 in order, the researcher will also go backwards and forwards between stages. Some stages will themselves be a forwards and backwards processing of coding and refining when working across different interview transcripts.

At the stage of synthesizing, there are some common quandaries. When dealing with a dataset consisting of multiple interviews, there will be salient and minority statements across different participants, or consensus or dissent on topics of interest to the researcher. A strength of qualitative interviews is that we can build in these nuances and variations across our data as opposed to aggregating them away. When exploring and reporting data, researchers should be asking how different findings are patterned and which interviews contain which codes, themes or tropes. Researchers should think about how these variations fit within the longer flow of individual interviews and what these variations tell them about the nature of their substantive research interests.

A further consideration is how to approach analysis within and across interview data. Researchers may look at one individual code, to examine the forms it takes across different participants and what they might be able to summarize about this code in the round. Alternatively, they might look at how a code or set of codes pattern across the account of one participant, to understand the code(s) in a more contextualized way. Further analysis might be done according to different sampling characteristics, where researchers group together interviews based on certain demographic characteristics and explore these together.

When it comes to writing up and presenting interview data, key considerations tend to rest on what is often termed transparency. When presenting the findings of an interview-based study, the reader should be able to understand and trace what the stated findings are based upon. This process typically involves describing the analytic process, how key decisions were made and presenting direct excerpts from the data. It is important to account for how the interview was set up and to consider the active part that the researcher has played in generating the data 32 . Quotes from interviews should not be thought of as merely embellishing or adding interest to a final research output. Rather, quotes serve the important function of connecting the reader directly to the underlying data. Quotes, therefore, should be chosen because they provide the reader with the most apt insight into what is being discussed. It is good practice to report not just on what participants said, but also on the questions that were asked to elicit the responses.

Researchers have increasingly used specialist qualitative data analysis software to organize and analyse their interview data, such as NVivo or ATLAS.ti. It is important to remember that such software is a tool for, rather than an approach or technique of, analysis. That said, software also creates a wide range of possibilities in terms of what can be done with the data. As researchers, we should reflect on how the range of possibilities of a given software package might be shaping our analytical choices and whether these are choices that we do indeed want to make.

Applications

This section reviews how and why in-depth interviews have been used by researchers studying gender, education and inequality, nationalism and ethnicity and the welfare state. Although interviews can be employed as a method of data collection in just about any social science topic, the applications below speak directly to the authors’ expertise and cutting-edge areas of research.

When it comes to the broad study of gender, in-depth interviews have been invaluable in shaping our understanding of how gender functions in everyday life. In a study of the US hedge fund industry (an industry dominated by white men), Tobias Neely was interested in understanding the factors that enable white men to prosper in the industry 33 . The study comprised interviews with 45 hedge fund workers and oversampled women of all races and men of colour to capture a range of experiences and beliefs. Tobias Neely found that practices of hiring, grooming and seeding are key to maintaining white men’s dominance in the industry. In terms of hiring, the interviews clarified that white men in charge typically preferred to hire people like themselves, usually from their extended networks. When women were hired, they were usually hired to less lucrative positions. In terms of grooming, Tobias Neely identifies how older and more senior men in the industry who have power and status will select one or several younger men as their protégés, to include in their own elite networks. Finally, in terms of her concept of seeding, Tobias Neely describes how older men who are hedge fund managers provide the seed money (often in the hundreds of millions of dollars) for a hedge fund to men, often their own sons (but not their daughters). These interviews provided an in-depth look into gendered and racialized mechanisms that allow white men to flourish in this industry.

Research by Rao draws on dozens of interviews with men and women who had lost their jobs, some of the participants’ spouses and follow-up interviews with about half the sample approximately 6 months after the initial interview 34 . Rao used interviews to understand the gendered experience and understanding of unemployment. Through these interviews, she found that the very process of losing their jobs meant different things for men and women. Women often saw job loss as being a personal indictment of their professional capabilities. The women interviewed often referenced how years of devaluation in the workplace coloured their interpretation of their job loss. Men, by contrast, were also saddened by their job loss, but they saw it as part and parcel of a weak economy rather than a personal failing. How these varied interpretations occurred was tied to men’s and women’s very different experiences in the workplace. Further, through her analysis of these interviews, Rao also showed how these gendered interpretations had implications for the kinds of jobs men and women sought to pursue after job loss. Whereas men remained tied to participating in full-time paid work, job loss appeared to be a catalyst pushing some of the women to re-evaluate their ties to the labour force.

In a study of workers in the tech industry, Hart used interviews to explain how individuals respond to unwanted and ambiguously sexual interactions 35 . Here, the researcher used interviews to allow participants to describe how these interactions made them feel and act and the logics of how they interpreted, classified and made sense of them 35 . Through her analysis of these interviews, Hart showed that participants engaged in a process she termed “trajectory guarding”, whereby they sought to monitor unwanted and ambiguously sexual interactions to avoid them from escalating. Yet, as Hart’s analysis proficiently demonstrates, these very strategies — which protect these workers sexually — also undermined their workplace advancement.

Drawing on interviews, these studies have helped us to understand better how gendered mechanisms, gendered interpretations and gendered interactions foster gender inequality when it comes to paid work. Methodologically, these studies illuminate the power of interviews to reveal important aspects of social life.

Nationalism and ethnicity

Traditionally, nationalism has been studied from a top-down perspective, through the lens of the state or using historical methods; in other words, in-depth interviews have not been a common way of collecting data to study nationalism. The methodological turn towards everyday nationalism has encouraged more scholars to go to the field and use interviews (and ethnography) to understand nationalism from the bottom up: how people talk about, give meaning, understand, navigate and contest their relation to nation, national identification and nationalism 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 . This turn has also addressed the gap left by those studying national and ethnic identification via quantitative methods, such as surveys.

Surveys can enumerate how individuals ascribe to categorical forms of identification 40 . However, interviews can question the usefulness of such categories and ask whether these categories are reflected, or resisted, by participants in terms of the meanings they give to identification 41 , 42 . Categories often pitch identification as a mutually exclusive choice; but identification might be more complex than such categories allow. For example, some might hybridize these categories or see themselves as moving between and across categories 43 . Hearing how people talk about themselves and their relation to nations, states and ethnicities, therefore, contributes substantially to the study of nationalism and national and ethnic forms of identification.

One particular approach to studying these topics, whether via everyday nationalism or alternatives, is that of using interviews to capture both articulations and narratives of identification, relations to nationalism and the boundaries people construct. For example, interviews can be used to gather self–other narratives by studying how individuals construct I–we–them boundaries 44 , including how participants talk about themselves, who participants include in their various ‘we’ groupings and which and how participants create ‘them’ groupings of others, inserting boundaries between ‘I/we’ and ‘them’. Overall, interviews hold great potential for listening to participants and understanding the nuances of identification and the construction of boundaries from their point of view.

Education and inequality

Scholars of social stratification have long noted that the school system often reproduces existing social inequalities. Carter explains that all schools have both material and sociocultural resources 45 . When children from different backgrounds attend schools with different material resources, their educational and occupational outcomes are likely to vary. Such material resources are relatively easy to measure. They are operationalized as teacher-to-student ratios, access to computers and textbooks and the physical infrastructure of classrooms and playgrounds.

Drawing on Bourdieusian theory 46 , Carter conceptualizes the sociocultural context as the norms, values and dispositions privileged within a social space 45 . Scholars have drawn on interviews with students and teachers (as well as ethnographic observations) to show how schools confer advantages on students from middle-class families, for example, by rewarding their help-seeking behaviours 47 . Focusing on race, researchers have revealed how schools can remain socioculturally white even as they enrol a racially diverse student population. In such contexts, for example, teachers often misrecognize the aesthetic choices made by students of colour, wrongly inferring that these students’ tastes in clothing and music reflect negative orientations to schooling 48 , 49 , 50 . These assessments can result in disparate forms of discipline and may ultimately shape educators’ assessments of students’ academic potential 51 .

Further, teachers and administrators tend to view the appropriate relationship between home and school in ways that resonate with white middle-class parents 52 . These parents are then able to advocate effectively for their children in ways that non-white parents are not 53 . In-depth interviews are particularly good at tapping into these understandings, revealing the mechanisms that confer privilege on certain groups of students and thereby reproduce inequality.

In addition, interviews can shed light on the unequal experiences that young people have within educational institutions, as the views of dominant groups are affirmed while those from disadvantaged backgrounds are delegitimized. For example, Teeger’s interviews with South African high schoolers showed how — because racially charged incidents are often framed as jokes in the broader school culture — Black students often feel compelled to ignore and keep silent about the racism they experience 54 . Interviews revealed that Black students who objected to these supposed jokes were coded by other students as serious or angry. In trying to avoid such labels, these students found themselves unable to challenge the racism they experienced. Interviews give us insight into these dynamics and help us see how young people understand and interpret the messages transmitted in schools — including those that speak to issues of inequality in their local school contexts as well as in society more broadly 24 , 55 .

The welfare state

In-depth interviews have also proved to be an important method for studying various aspects of the welfare state. By welfare state, we mean the social institutions relating to the economic and social wellbeing of a state’s citizens. Notably, using interviews has been useful to look at how policy design features are experienced and play out on the ground. Interviews have often been paired with large-scale surveys to produce mixed-methods study designs, therefore achieving both breadth and depth of insights.

In-depth interviews provide the opportunity to look behind policy assumptions or how policies are designed from the top down, to examine how these play out in the lives of those affected by the policies and whose experiences might otherwise be obscured or ignored. For example, the Welfare Conditionality project used interviews to critique the assumptions that conditionality (such as, the withdrawal of social security benefits if recipients did not perform or meet certain criteria) improved employment outcomes and instead showed that conditionality was harmful to mental health, living standards and had many other negative consequences 56 . Meanwhile, combining datasets from two small-scale interview studies with recipients allowed Summers and Young to critique assumptions around the simplicity that underpinned the design of Universal Credit in 2020, for example, showing that the apparently simple monthly payment design instead burdened recipients with additional money management decisions and responsibilities 57 .

Similarly, the Welfare at a (Social) Distance project used a mixed-methods approach in a large-scale study that combined national surveys with case studies and in-depth interviews to investigate the experience of claiming social security benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews allowed researchers to understand in detail any issues experienced by recipients of benefits, such as delays in the process of claiming, managing on a very tight budget and navigating stigma and claiming 58 .

These applications demonstrate the multi-faceted topics and questions for which interviews can be a relevant method for data collection. These applications highlight not only the relevance of interviews, but also emphasize the key added value of interviews, which might be missed by other methods (surveys, in particular). Interviews can expose and question what is taken for granted and directly engage with communities and participants that might otherwise be ignored, obscured or marginalized.

Reproducibility and data deposition

There is a robust, ongoing debate about reproducibility in qualitative research, including interview studies. In some research paradigms, reproducibility can be a way of interrogating the rigour and robustness of research claims, by seeing whether these hold up when the research process is repeated. Some scholars have suggested that although reproducibility may be challenging, researchers can facilitate it by naming the place where the research was conducted, naming participants, sharing interview and fieldwork transcripts (anonymized and de-identified in cases where researchers are not naming people or places) and employing fact-checkers for accuracy 11 , 59 , 60 .

In addition to the ethical concerns of whether de-anonymization is ever feasible or desirable, it is also important to address whether the replicability of interview studies is meaningful. For example, the flexibility of interviews allows for the unexpected and the unforeseen to be incorporated into the scope of the research 61 . However, this flexibility means that we cannot expect reproducibility in the conventional sense, given that different researchers will elicit different types of data from participants. Sharing interview transcripts with other researchers, for instance, downplays the contextual nature of an interview.

Drawing on Bauer and Gaskell, we propose several measures to enhance rigour in qualitative research: transparency, grounding interpretations and aiming for theoretical transferability and significance 62 .

Researchers should be transparent when describing their methodological choices. Transparency means documenting who was interviewed, where and when (without requiring de-anonymization, for example, by documenting their characteristics), as well as the questions they were asked. It means carefully considering who was left out of the interviews and what that could mean for the researcher’s findings. It also means carefully considering who the researcher is and how their identity shaped the research process (integrating and articulating reflexivity into whatever is written up).

Second, researchers should ground their interpretations in the data. Grounding means presenting the evidence upon which the interpretation relies. Quotes and extracts should be extensive enough to allow the reader to evaluate whether the researcher’s interpretations are grounded in the data. At each step, researchers should carefully compare their own explanations and interpretations with alternative explanations. Doing so systematically and frequently allows researchers to become more confident in their claims. Here, researchers should justify the link between data and analysis by using quotes to justify and demonstrate the analytical point, while making sure the analytical point offers an interpretation of quotes (Box  4 ).

An important step in considering alternative explanations is to seek out disconfirming evidence 4 , 63 . This involves looking for instances where participants deviate from what the majority are saying and thus bring into question the theory (or explanation) that the researcher is developing. Careful analysis of such examples can often demonstrate the salience and meaning of what appears to be the norm (see Table  2 for examples) 54 . Considering alternative explanations and paying attention to disconfirming evidence allows the researcher to refine their own theories in respect of the data.

Finally, researchers should aim for theoretical transferability and significance in their discussions of findings. One way to think about this is to imagine someone who is not interested in the empirical study. Articulating theoretical transferability and significance usually takes the form of broadening out from the specific findings to consider explicitly how the research has refined or altered prior theoretical approaches. This process also means considering under what other conditions, aside from those of the study, the researcher thinks their theoretical revision would be supported by and why. Importantly, it also includes thinking about the limitations of one’s own approach and where the theoretical implications of the study might not hold.

Box 4 An example of grounding interpretations in data (from Rao 34 )

In an article explaining how unemployed men frame their job loss as a pervasive experience, Rao writes the following: “Unemployed men in this study understood unemployment to be an expected aspect of paid work in the contemporary United States. Robert, a white unemployed communications professional, compared the economic landscape after the Great Recession with the tragic events of September 11, 2001:

Part of your post-9/11 world was knowing people that died as a result of terrorism. The same thing is true with the [Great] Recession, right? … After the Recession you know somebody who was unemployed … People that really should be working.

The pervasiveness of unemployment rendered it normal, as Robert indicates.”

Here, the link between the quote presented and the analytical point Rao is making is clear: the analytical point is grounded in a quote and an interpretation of the quote is offered 34 .

Limitations and optimizations

When deciding which research method to use, the key question is whether the method provides a good fit for the research questions posed. In other words, researchers should consider whether interviews will allow them to successfully access the social phenomena necessary to answer their question(s) and whether the interviews will do so more effectively than other methods. Table  3 summarizes the major strengths and limitations of interviews. However, the accompanying text below is organized around some key issues, where relative strengths and weaknesses are presented alongside each other, the aim being that readers should think about how these can be balanced and optimized in relation to their own research.

Breadth versus depth of insight

Achieving an overall breadth of insight, in a statistically representative sense, is not something that is possible or indeed desirable when conducting in-depth interviews. Instead, the strength of conducting interviews lies in their ability to generate various sorts of depth of insight. The experiences or views of participants that can be accessed by conducting interviews help us to understand participants’ subjective realities. The challenge, therefore, is for researchers to be clear about why depth of insight is the focus and what we should aim to glean from these types of insight.

Naturalistic or artificial interviews

Interviews make use of a form of interaction with which people are familiar 64 . By replicating a naturalistic form of interaction as a tool to gather social science data, researchers can capitalize on people’s familiarity and expectations of what happens in a conversation. This familiarity can also be a challenge, as people come to the interview with preconceived ideas about what this conversation might be for or about. People may draw on experiences of other similar conversations when taking part in a research interview (for example, job interviews, therapy sessions, confessional conversations, chats with friends). Researchers should be aware of such potential overlaps and think through their implications both in how the aims and purposes of the research interview are communicated to participants and in how interview data are interpreted.

Further, some argue that a limitation of interviews is that they are an artificial form of data collection. By taking people out of their daily lives and asking them to stand back and pass comment, we are creating a distance that makes it difficult to use such data to say something meaningful about people’s actions, experiences and views. Other approaches, such as ethnography, might be more suitable for tapping into what people actually do, as opposed to what they say they do 65 .

Dynamism and replicability

Interviews following a semi-structured format offer flexibility both to the researcher and the participant. As the conversation develops, the interlocutors can explore the topics raised in much more detail, if desired, or pass over ones that are not relevant. This flexibility allows for the unexpected and the unforeseen to be incorporated into the scope of the research.

However, this flexibility has a related challenge of replicability. Interviews cannot be reproduced because they are contingent upon the interaction between the researcher and the participant in that given moment of interaction. In some research paradigms, replicability can be a way of interrogating the robustness of research claims, by seeing whether they hold when they are repeated. This is not a useful framework to bring to in-depth interviews and instead quality criteria (such as transparency) tend to be employed as criteria of rigour.

Accessing the private and personal

Interviews have been recognized for their strength in accessing private, personal issues, which participants may feel more comfortable talking about in a one-to-one conversation. Furthermore, interviews are likely to take a more personable form with their extended questions and answers, perhaps making a participant feel more at ease when discussing sensitive topics in such a context. There is a similar, but separate, argument made about accessing what are sometimes referred to as vulnerable groups, who may be difficult to make contact with using other research methods.

There is an associated challenge of anonymity. There can be types of in-depth interview that make it particularly challenging to protect the identities of participants, such as interviewing within a small community, or multiple members of the same household. The challenge to ensure anonymity in such contexts is even more important and difficult when the topic of research is of a sensitive nature or participants are vulnerable.

Increasingly, researchers are collaborating in large-scale interview-based studies and integrating interviews into broader mixed-methods designs. At the same time, interviews can be seen as an old-fashioned (and perhaps outdated) mode of data collection. We review these debates and discussions and point to innovations in interview-based studies. These include the shift from face-to-face interviews to the use of online platforms, as well as integrating and adapting interviews towards more inclusive methodologies.

Collaborating and mixing

Qualitative researchers have long worked alone 66 . Increasingly, however, researchers are collaborating with others for reasons such as efficiency, institutional incentives (for example, funding for collaborative research) and a desire to pool expertise (for example, studying similar phenomena in different contexts 67 or via different methods). Collaboration can occur across disciplines and methods, cases and contexts and between industry/business, practitioners and researchers. In many settings and contexts, collaboration has become an imperative 68 .

Cheek notes how collaboration provides both advantages and disadvantages 68 . For example, collaboration can be advantageous, saving time and building on the divergent knowledge, skills and resources of different researchers. Scholars with different theoretical or case-based knowledge (or contacts) can work together to build research that is comparative and/or more than the sum of its parts. But such endeavours also carry with them practical and political challenges in terms of how resources might actually be pooled, shared or accounted for. When undertaking such projects, as Morse notes, it is worth thinking about the nature of the collaboration and being explicit about such a choice, its advantages and its disadvantages 66 .

A further tension, but also a motivation for collaboration, stems from integrating interviews as a method in a mixed-methods project, whether with other qualitative researchers (to combine with, for example, focus groups, document analysis or ethnography) or with quantitative researchers (to combine with, for example, surveys, social media analysis or big data analysis). Cheek and Morse both note the pitfalls of collaboration with quantitative researchers: that quality of research may be sacrificed, qualitative interpretations watered down or not taken seriously, or tensions experienced over the pace and different assumptions that come with different methods and approaches of research 66 , 68 .

At the same time, there can be real benefits of such mixed-methods collaboration, such as reaching different and more diverse audiences or testing assumptions and theories between research components in the same project (for example, testing insights from prior quantitative research via interviews, or vice versa), as long as the skillsets of collaborators are seen as equally beneficial to the project. Cheek provides a set of questions that, as a starting point, can be useful for guiding collaboration, whether mixed methods or otherwise. First, Cheek advises asking all collaborators about their assumptions and understandings concerning collaboration. Second, Cheek recommends discussing what each perspective highlights and focuses on (and conversely ignores or sidelines) 68 .

A different way to engage with the idea of collaboration and mixed methods research is by fostering greater collaboration between researchers in the Global South and Global North, thus reversing trends of researchers from the Global North extracting knowledge from the Global South 69 . Such forms of collaboration also align with interview innovations, discussed below, that seek to transform traditional interview approaches into more participatory and inclusive (as part of participatory methodologies).

Digital innovations and challenges

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has centred the question of technology within interview-based fieldwork. Although conducting synchronous oral interviews online — for example, via Zoom, Skype or other such platforms — has been a method used by a small constituency of researchers for many years, it became (and remains) a necessity for many researchers wanting to continue or start interview-based projects while COVID-19 prevents face-to-face data collection.

In the past, online interviews were often framed as an inferior form of data collection for not providing the kinds of (often necessary) insights and forms of immersion face-to-face interviews allow 70 , 71 . Online interviews do tend to be more decontextualized than interviews conducted face-to-face 72 . For example, it is harder to recognize, engage with and respond to non-verbal cues 71 . At the same time, they broaden participation to those who might not have been able to access or travel to sites where interviews would have been conducted otherwise, for example people with disabilities. Online interviews also offer more flexibility in terms of scheduling and time requirements. For example, they provide more flexibility around precarious employment or caring responsibilities without having to travel and be away from home. In addition, online interviews might also reduce discomfort between researchers and participants, compared with face-to-face interviews, enabling more discussion of sensitive material 71 . They can also provide participants with more control, enabling them to turn on and off the microphone and video as they choose, for example, to provide more time to reflect and disconnect if they so wish 72 .

That said, online interviews can also introduce new biases based on access to technology 72 . For example, in the Global South, there are often urban/rural and gender gaps between who has access to mobile phones and who does not, meaning that some population groups might be overlooked unless researchers sample mindfully 71 . There are also important ethical considerations when deciding between online and face-to-face interviews. Online interviews might seem to imply lower ethical risks than face-to-face interviews (for example, they lower the chances of identification of participants or researchers), but they also offer more barriers to building trust between researchers and participants 72 . Interacting only online with participants might not provide the information needed to assess risk, for example, participants’ access to a private space to speak 71 . Just because online interviews might be more likely to be conducted in private spaces does not mean that private spaces are safe, for example, for victims of domestic violence. Finally, online interviews prompt further questions about decolonizing research and engaging with participants if research is conducted from afar 72 , such as how to include participants meaningfully and challenge dominant assumptions while doing so remotely.

A further digital innovation, modulating how researchers conduct interviews and the kinds of data collected and analysed, stems from the use and integration of (new) technology, such as WhatsApp text or voice notes to conduct synchronous or asynchronous oral or written interviews 73 . Such methods can provide more privacy, comfort and control to participants and make recruitment easier, allowing participants to share what they want when they want to, using technology that already forms a part of their daily lives, especially for young people 74 , 75 . Such technology is also emerging in other qualitative methods, such as focus groups, with similar arguments around greater inclusivity versus traditional offline modes. Here, the digital challenge might be higher for researchers than for participants if they are less used to such technology 75 . And while there might be concerns about the richness, depth and quality of written messages as a form of interview data, Gibson reports that the reams of transcripts that resulted from a study using written messaging were dense with meaning to be analysed 75 .

Like with online and face-to-face interviews, it is important also to consider the ethical questions and challenges of using such technology, from gaining consent to ensuring participant safety and attending to their distress, without cues, like crying, that might be more obvious in a face-to-face setting 75 , 76 . Attention to the platform used for such interviews is also important and researchers should be attuned to the local and national context. For example, in China, many platforms are neither legal nor available 76 . There, more popular platforms — like WeChat — can be highly monitored by the government, posing potential risks to participants depending on the topic of the interview. Ultimately, researchers should consider trade-offs between online and offline interview modalities, being attentive to the social context and power dynamics involved.

The next 5–10 years

Continuing to integrate (ethically) this technology will be among the major persisting developments in interview-based research, whether to offer more flexibility to researchers or participants, or to diversify who can participate and on what terms.

Pushing the idea of inclusion even further is the potential for integrating interview-based studies within participatory methods, which are also innovating via integrating technology. There is no hard and fast line between researchers using in-depth interviews and participatory methods; many who employ participatory methods will use interviews at the beginning, middle or end phases of a research project to capture insights, perspectives and reflections from participants 77 , 78 . Participatory methods emphasize the need to resist existing power and knowledge structures. They broaden who has the right and ability to contribute to academic knowledge by including and incorporating participants not only as subjects of data collection, but as crucial voices in research design and data analysis 77 . Participatory methods also seek to facilitate local change and to produce research materials, whether for academic or non-academic audiences, including films and documentaries, in collaboration with participants.

In responding to the challenges of COVID-19, capturing the fraught situation wrought by the pandemic and the momentum to integrate technology, participatory researchers have sought to continue data collection from afar. For example, Marzi has adapted an existing project to co-produce participatory videos, via participants’ smartphones in Medellin, Colombia, alongside regular check-in conversations/meetings/interviews with participants 79 . Integrating participatory methods into interview studies offers a route by which researchers can respond to the challenge of diversifying knowledge, challenging assumptions and power hierarchies and creating more inclusive and collaborative partnerships between participants and researchers in the Global North and South.

Brinkmann, S. & Kvale, S. Doing Interviews Vol. 2 (Sage, 2018). This book offers a good general introduction to the practice and design of interview-based studies.

Silverman, D. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting And Reasonably Cheap Book About Qualitative Research (Sage, 2017).

Yin, R. K. Case Study Research And Applications: Design And Methods (Sage, 2018).

Small, M. L. How many cases do I need?’ On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 , 5–38 (2009). This article convincingly demonstrates how the logic of qualitative research differs from quantitative research and its goal of representativeness.

Google Scholar  

Gerson, K. & Damaske, S. The Science and Art of Interviewing (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research (Aldine, 1967).

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 13 , 201–216 (2021).

Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 , 59–82 (2006).

Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S. & Young, T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18 , 148 (2018).

Silverman, D. How was it for you? The Interview Society and the irresistible rise of the (poorly analyzed) interview. Qual. Res. 17 , 144–158 (2017).

Jerolmack, C. & Murphy, A. The ethical dilemmas and social scientific tradeoffs of masking in ethnography. Sociol. Methods Res. 48 , 801–827 (2019).

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Reyes, V. Ethnographic toolkit: strategic positionality and researchers’ visible and invisible tools in field research. Ethnography 21 , 220–240 (2020).

Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. Ethics, reflexivity and “ethically important moments” in research. Qual. Inq. 10 , 261–280 (2004).

Summers, K. For the greater good? Ethical reflections on interviewing the ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ in qualitative research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 23 , 593–602 (2020). This article argues that, in qualitative interview research, a clearer distinction needs to be drawn between ethical commitments to individual research participants and the group(s) to which they belong, a distinction that is often elided in existing ethics guidelines.

Yusupova, G. Exploring sensitive topics in an authoritarian context: an insider perspective. Soc. Sci. Q. 100 , 1459–1478 (2019).

Hemming, J. in Surviving Field Research: Working In Violent And Difficult Situations 21–37 (Routledge, 2009).

Murphy, E. & Dingwall, R. Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Soc. Sci. Med. 65 , 2223–2234 (2007).

Kostovicova, D. & Knott, E. Harm, change and unpredictability: the ethics of interviews in conflict research. Qual. Res. 22 , 56–73 (2022). This article highlights how interviews need to be considered as ethically unpredictable moments where engaging with change among participants can itself be ethical.

Andersson, R. Illegality, Inc.: Clandestine Migration And The Business Of Bordering Europe (Univ. California Press, 2014).

Ellis, R. What do we mean by a “hard-to-reach” population? Legitimacy versus precarity as barriers to access. Sociol. Methods Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995536 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide (Sage, 2022).

Alejandro, A. & Knott, E. How to pay attention to the words we use: the reflexive review as a method for linguistic reflexivity. Int. Stud. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac025 (2022).

Alejandro, A., Laurence, M. & Maertens, L. in International Organisations and Research Methods: An Introduction (eds Badache, F., Kimber, L. R. & Maertens, L.) (Michigan Univ. Press, in the press).

Teeger, C. “Both sides of the story” history education in post-apartheid South Africa. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80 , 1175–1200 (2015).

Crotty, M. The Foundations Of Social Research: Meaning And Perspective In The Research Process (Routledge, 2020).

Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2 , 281–307 (2005).

Taylor, S. What is Discourse Analysis? (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013).

Riessman, C. K. Narrative Analysis (Sage, 1993).

Corbin, J. M. & Strauss, A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13 , 3–21 (1990).

Timmermans, S. & Tavory, I. Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol. Theory 30 , 167–186 (2012).

Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Meth. 5 , 80–92 (2006).

Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. Eight challenges for interview researchers. Handb. Interview Res. 2 , 541–570 (2012).

Tobias Neely, M. Fit to be king: how patrimonialism on Wall Street leads to inequality. Socioecon. Rev. 16 , 365–385 (2018).

Rao, A. H. Gendered interpretations of job loss and subsequent professional pathways. Gend. Soc. 35 , 884–909 (2021). This article used interview data from unemployed men and women to illuminate how job loss becomes a pivotal moment shaping men’s and women’s orientation to paid work, especially in terms of curtailing women’s participation in paid work.

Hart, C. G. Trajectory guarding: managing unwanted, ambiguously sexual interactions at work. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86 , 256–278 (2021).

Goode, J. P. & Stroup, D. R. Everyday nationalism: constructivism for the masses. Soc. Sci. Q. 96 , 717–739 (2015).

Antonsich, M. The ‘everyday’ of banal nationalism — ordinary people’s views on Italy and Italian. Polit. Geogr. 54 , 32–42 (2016).

Fox, J. E. & Miller-Idriss, C. Everyday nationhood. Ethnicities 8 , 536–563 (2008).

Yusupova, G. Cultural nationalism and everyday resistance in an illiberal nationalising state: ethnic minority nationalism in Russia. Nations National. 24 , 624–647 (2018).

Kiely, R., Bechhofer, F. & McCrone, D. Birth, blood and belonging: identity claims in post-devolution Scotland. Sociol. Rev. 53 , 150–171 (2005).

Brubaker, R. & Cooper, F. Beyond ‘identity’. Theory Soc. 29 , 1–47 (2000).

Brubaker, R. Ethnicity Without Groups (Harvard Univ. Press, 2004).

Knott, E. Kin Majorities: Identity And Citizenship In Crimea And Moldova From The Bottom-Up (McGill Univ. Press, 2022).

Bucher, B. & Jasper, U. Revisiting ‘identity’ in international relations: from identity as substance to identifications in action. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 23 , 391–415 (2016).

Carter, P. L. Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture And Inequality In US And South African Schools (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

Bourdieu, P. in Cultural Theory: An Anthology Vol. 1, 81–93 (eds Szeman, I. & Kaposy, T.) (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

Calarco, J. M. Negotiating Opportunities: How The Middle Class Secures Advantages In School (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

Carter, P. L. Keepin’ It Real: School Success Beyond Black And White (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).

Carter, P. L. ‘Black’ cultural capital, status positioning and schooling conflicts for low-income African American youth. Soc. Probl. 50 , 136–155 (2003).

Warikoo, N. K. The Diversity Bargain Balancing Acts: Youth Culture in the Global City (Univ. California Press, 2011).

Morris, E. W. “Tuck in that shirt!” Race, class, gender and discipline in an urban school. Sociol. Perspect. 48 , 25–48 (2005).

Lareau, A. Social class differences in family–school relationships: the importance of cultural capital. Sociol. Educ. 60 , 73–85 (1987).

Warikoo, N. Addressing emotional health while protecting status: Asian American and white parents in suburban America. Am. J. Sociol. 126 , 545–576 (2020).

Teeger, C. Ruptures in the rainbow nation: how desegregated South African schools deal with interpersonal and structural racism. Sociol. Educ. 88 , 226–243 (2015). This article leverages ‘ deviant ’ cases in an interview study with South African high schoolers to understand why the majority of participants were reluctant to code racially charged incidents at school as racist.

Ispa-Landa, S. & Conwell, J. “Once you go to a white school, you kind of adapt” black adolescents and the racial classification of schools. Sociol. Educ. 88 , 1–19 (2015).

Dwyer, P. J. Punitive and ineffective: benefit sanctions within social security. J. Soc. Secur. Law 25 , 142–157 (2018).

Summers, K. & Young, D. Universal simplicity? The alleged simplicity of Universal Credit from administrative and claimant perspectives. J. Poverty Soc. Justice 28 , 169–186 (2020).

Summers, K. et al. Claimants’ Experiences Of The Social Security System During The First Wave Of COVID-19 . https://www.distantwelfare.co.uk/winter-report (2021).

Desmond, M. Evicted: Poverty And Profit In The American City (Crown Books, 2016).

Reyes, V. Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: naming places, naming people and sharing data. Ethnography 19 , 204–226 (2018).

Robson, C. & McCartan, K. Real World Research (Wiley, 2016).

Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. Qualitative Researching With Text, Image And Sound: A Practical Handbook (SAGE, 2000).

Lareau, A. Listening To People: A Practical Guide To Interviewing, Participant Observation, Data Analysis And Writing It All Up (Univ. Chicago Press, 2021).

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage, 1985).

Jerolmack, C. & Khan, S. Talk is cheap. Sociol. Methods Res. 43 , 178–209 (2014).

Morse, J. M. Styles of collaboration in qualitative inquiry. Qual. Health Res. 18 , 3–4 (2008).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Lamont, M. et al. Getting Respect: Responding To Stigma And Discrimination In The United States, Brazil And Israel (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016).

Cheek, J. Researching collaboratively: implications for qualitative research and researchers. Qual. Health Res. 18 , 1599–1603 (2008).

Botha, L. Mixing methods as a process towards indigenous methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 14 , 313–325 (2011).

Howlett, M. Looking at the ‘field’ through a zoom lens: methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691 (2021).

Reñosa, M. D. C. et al. Selfie consents, remote rapport and Zoom debriefings: collecting qualitative data amid a pandemic in four resource-constrained settings. BMJ Glob. Health 6 , e004193 (2021).

Mwambari, D., Purdeková, A. & Bisoka, A. N. Covid-19 and research in conflict-affected contexts: distanced methods and the digitalisation of suffering. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794121999014 (2021).

Colom, A. Using WhatsApp for focus group discussions: ecological validity, inclusion and deliberation. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120986074 (2021).

Kaufmann, K. & Peil, C. The mobile instant messaging interview (MIMI): using WhatsApp to enhance self-reporting and explore media usage in situ. Mob. Media Commun. 8 , 229–246 (2020).

Gibson, K. Bridging the digital divide: reflections on using WhatsApp instant messenger interviews in youth research. Qual. Res. Psychol. 19 , 611–631 (2020).

Lawrence, L. Conducting cross-cultural qualitative interviews with mainland Chinese participants during COVID: lessons from the field. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120974157 (2020).

Ponzoni, E. Windows of understanding: broadening access to knowledge production through participatory action research. Qual. Res. 16 , 557–574 (2016).

Kong, T. S. Gay and grey: participatory action research in Hong Kong. Qual. Res. 18 , 257–272 (2018).

Marzi, S. Participatory video from a distance: co-producing knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic using smartphones. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211038171 (2021).

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. InterViews: Learning The Craft Of Qualitative Research Interviewing (Sage, 2008).

Rao, A. H. The ideal job-seeker norm: unemployment and marital privileges in the professional middle-class. J. Marriage Fam. 83 , 1038–1057 (2021).

Rivera, L. A. Ivies, extracurriculars and exclusion: elite employers’ use of educational credentials. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 29 , 71–90 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the MY421 team and students for prompting how best to frame and communicate issues pertinent to in-depth interview studies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Methodology, London School of Economics, London, UK

Eleanor Knott, Aliya Hamid Rao, Kate Summers & Chana Teeger

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleanor Knott .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Methods Primers thanks Jonathan Potter and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A pre-written interview outline for a semi-structured interview that provides both a topic structure and the ability to adapt flexibly to the content and context of the interview and the interaction between the interviewer and participant. Others may refer to the topic guide as an interview protocol.

Here we refer to the participants that take part in the study as the sample. Other researchers may refer to the participants as a participant group or dataset.

This involves dividing a population into smaller groups based on particular characteristics, for example, age or gender, and then sampling randomly within each group.

A sampling method where the guiding logic when deciding who to recruit is to achieve the most relevant participants for the research topic, in terms of being rich in information or insights.

Researchers ask participants to introduce the researcher to others who meet the study’s inclusion criteria.

Similar to stratified sampling, but participants are not necessarily randomly selected. Instead, the researcher determines how many people from each category of participants should be recruited. Recruitment can happen via snowball or purposive sampling.

A method for developing, analysing and interpreting patterns across data by coding in order to develop themes.

An approach that interrogates the explicit, implicit and taken-for-granted dimensions of language as well as the contexts in which it is articulated to unpack its purposes and effects.

A form of transcription that simplifies what has been said by removing certain verbal and non-verbal details that add no further meaning, such as ‘ums and ahs’ and false starts.

The analytic framework, theoretical approach and often hypotheses, are developed prior to examining the data and then applied to the dataset.

The analytic framework and theoretical approach is developed from analysing the data.

An approach that combines deductive and inductive components to work recursively by going back and forth between data and existing theoretical frameworks (also described as an iterative approach). This approach is increasingly recognized not only as a more realistic but also more desirable third alternative to the more traditional inductive versus deductive binary choice.

A theoretical apparatus that emphasizes the role of cultural processes and capital in (intergenerational) social reproduction.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Knott, E., Rao, A.H., Summers, K. et al. Interviews in the social sciences. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2 , 73 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6

Download citation

Accepted : 14 July 2022

Published : 15 September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Development of a digital intervention for psychedelic preparation (dipp).

• Rosalind G. McAlpine
• Matthew D. Sacchet
• Sunjeev K. Kamboj

Scientific Reports (2024)

Between the dog and the wolf: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of bicultural, sexual minority people’s lived experiences

• Emelie Louise Miller
• Ingrid Zakrisson

Discover Psychology (2024)

Acknowledging that Men are Moral and Harmed by Gender Stereotypes Increases Men’s Willingness to Engage in Collective Action on Behalf of Women

• Alexandra Vázquez
• Lucía López-Rodríguez
• Marco Brambilla

Sex Roles (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Interview Methodology

Introduction, general overviews.

• Interview Styles
• Focused Interviews and Focus Groups
• Sensitive Topics
• Recording the Data
• Transcribing Interviews
• Coding and Analysis of Interview Data
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Interview Methodology by Heather Hamill LAST REVIEWED: 27 March 2014 LAST MODIFIED: 27 March 2014 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0105

Interview methodology is perhaps the oldest of all the social science methodologies. Asking interview participants a series of informal questions to obtain knowledge has been a common practice among anthropologists and sociologists since the inception of their disciplines. Within sociology, the early-20th-century urban ethnographers of the Chicago School did much to prompt interest in the method. In essence, interviewing is a method of eliciting information. It is a “conversation between people in which one person has the role of the researcher” ( Arksey and Knight 1999 , cited under General Overviews ; p. 2). Interviews can be carried out face to face, over the telephone and Internet, or in a group setting. The interview can vary from a spontaneous conversation to a highly structured, closed interview style associated with social survey research. Semistructured or open-ended interviews are commonly used in qualitative research. They are often aided by an interview guide, schedule, or aide memoire that contains topics, themes, or issues to be covered during the course of the interview rather than a sequence of standardized questions. The intention is that the interviewer remains flexible and responsive throughout the interview so that the sequence of questions can change, their content can evolve, and the interviewer can probe more deeply into initial responses to gain a more detailed or “in-depth” answer to the question. Interviews may also vary considerably in length. Thus the elicitation skills of the interviewer have a strong effect on the quality and richness of the interview data. Interview data is often recorded and then transcribed to produce text that can be analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis. In general, the overall sample size of an interview study is relatively small because of the amount of data that is generated in great depth and detail from interviewing. Thus, when thinking about who to interview and how many interviews to carry out, a non-probabilistic sampling strategy is generally most appropriate, and while empirical generalizations cannot be made, theory can be generated from this kind of data. Interview methodology is particularly useful for researchers who take a phenomenological approach. That is, they are concerned with the way in which individuals interpret and assign meaning to their social world. It is also commonly used in more open-ended inductive research whereby the researcher observes specific patterns within the interview data, formulates hypotheses to be explored with additional data, and finally develops theory.

Although sociologists had been carrying out interviewed-based research for some time, it was the work of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (see Glaser and Strauss 1967 ) that pioneered the integration of qualitative interviews into their field studies and subsequently developed the grounded theory approach to qualitative data analysis. There are a large number of very high quality ethnographic monographs that contain detailed accounts of how researchers negotiated access to research groups and individuals, the relationship between researcher and respondent, ethical concerns, what questions were asked and how they were framed, and the general highs and lows of interviewing. First published in 1943, Whyte 1993 is supremely well written and remains a classic ethnography, and the appendix contains rich and relevant details as to how the author elicited information from his respondents. Spradley 1979 was among the first to systematically outline interviewing as a distinct methodology, and this was followed by a plethora of methodology textbooks, such as Arksey and Knight 1999 , Patton 2002 , Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 (cited under Interview Styles ), and Kvale and Brinkmann 2009 , that all provide very detailed guidance on how to design an interview-based piece of research and how to best elicit information by interviewing respondents. Fielding’s edited four-volume Interviewing II ( Fielding 2009 ) and Gubrium, et al. 2012 both provide comprehensive overviews of the method.

Arksey, Hilary, and Peter Knight. 1999. Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples . London: SAGE.

This practical guide to interviewing covers a wide range of issues such as theories of interviewing, research design, and application and interpretation of interview data. Aimed at undergraduate and graduate students, it mainly focuses on interviewing within the context of small-scale studies with tight time and resource constraints.

Fielding, Nigel G., ed. 2009. Interviewing II . London: SAGE.

A four-volume collection of essays of which the wide-ranging contributions comprehensively cover all the theoretical and practical aspects of interviewing methodology.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago: Aldine.

The principles of grounded theory were first articulated in this book. The authors contrast grounded theories derived directly from the data with theories derived from a deductive approach.

Gubrium, Jaber F., James A. Holstein, Amir B. Marvasti, and Karyn D. McKinney, eds. 2012. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft . 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, and London: SAGE.

A comprehensive guide to interviewing, this second edition emphasizes the dynamic, interactional, and reflexive aspects of the research interview.

Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing . 2d ed. Los Angeles and London: SAGE.

An easy-to-read guide to interviewing. The authors propose that interviewing is a craft rather than just a method. The book emphasizes learning from “best practice,” and there are numerous examples and learning exercises to help facilitate that goal.

Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, and London: SAGE.

In chapter 7, Patton provides a comprehensive guide to qualitative interviewing. This chapter highlights the variations in qualitative interviews and the interview guides or schedules that can be used. It provides a very useful guide as to how to formulate and ask questions and offers practical tips about recording and transcribing interviews. The chapter also covers focus groups, group interviews, ethics, and the relationship between researcher and interview participants.

Spradley, James P. 1979. The ethnographic interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

A guide to ethnography informed by symbolic interactionism. Chapters 1 to 5 remain a very relevant and useful guide to interviewing.

Whyte, William Foote. 1993. Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum . 4th ed. Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press.

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226922669.001.0001

The appendix describes in great detail how Whyte carried out his ethnographic research. He writes about how he had to learn not only when it was appropriate to ask questions, but also how to ask those questions—and that, once he was established in the neighborhood, much of his data was gathered during casual conversations.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Sociology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Actor-Network Theory
• Adolescence
• African Americans
• African Societies
• Agent-Based Modeling
• Analysis, Spatial
• Analysis, World-Systems
• Anomie and Strain Theory
• Arab Spring, Mobilization, and Contentious Politics in the...
• Asian Americans
• Assimilation
• Authority and Work
• Bell, Daniel
• Biosociology
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Catholicism
• Causal Inference
• Chicago School of Sociology
• Chinese Cultural Revolution
• Chinese Society
• Citizenship
• Civil Rights
• Civil Society
• Cognitive Sociology
• Cohort Analysis
• Collective Efficacy
• Collective Memory
• Comparative Historical Sociology
• Comte, Auguste
• Conflict Theory
• Conservatism
• Consumer Culture
• Consumption
• Contemporary Family Issues
• Contingent Work
• Conversation Analysis
• Corrections
• Cosmopolitanism
• Crime, Cities and
• Cultural Capital
• Cultural Classification and Codes
• Cultural Economy
• Cultural Omnivorousness
• Cultural Production and Circulation
• Culture and Networks
• Culture, Sociology of
• Development
• Discrimination
• Doing Gender
• Du Bois, W.E.B.
• Durkheim, Émile
• Economic Institutions and Institutional Change
• Economic Sociology
• Education and Health
• Education Policy in the United States
• Educational Policy and Race
• Empires and Colonialism
• Entrepreneurship
• Environmental Sociology
• Epistemology
• Ethnic Enclaves
• Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis
• Exchange Theory
• Families, Postmodern
• Family Policies
• Feminist Theory
• Field, Bourdieu's Concept of
• Forced Migration
• Foucault, Michel
• Frankfurt School
• Gender and Bodies
• Gender and Crime
• Gender and Education
• Gender and Health
• Gender and Incarceration
• Gender and Professions
• Gender and Social Movements
• Gender and Work
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender, Sexuality, and Migration
• Gender Stratification
• Gender, Welfare Policy and
• Gendered Sexuality
• Gentrification
• Gerontology
• Globalization and Labor
• Goffman, Erving
• Historic Preservation
• Human Trafficking
• Immigration
• Indian Society, Contemporary
• Institutions
• Intellectuals
• Intersectionalities
• Interview Methodology
• Job Quality
• Knowledge, Critical Sociology of
• Labor Markets
• Latino/Latina Studies
• Law and Society
• Law, Sociology of
• LGBT Parenting and Family Formation
• LGBT Social Movements
• Life Course
• Lipset, S.M.
• Markets, Conventions and Categories in
• Marriage and Divorce
• Marxist Sociology
• Masculinity
• Mass Incarceration in the United States and its Collateral...
• Material Culture
• Mathematical Sociology
• Medical Sociology
• Mental Illness
• Methodological Individualism
• Middle Classes
• Military Sociology
• Money and Credit
• Multiculturalism
• Multilevel Models
• Multiracial, Mixed-Race, and Biracial Identities
• Nationalism
• Non-normative Sexuality Studies
• Occupations and Professions
• Organizations
• Panel Studies
• Parsons, Talcott
• Political Culture
• Political Economy
• Political Sociology
• Popular Culture
• Proletariat (Working Class)
• Protestantism
• Public Opinion
• Public Space
• Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
• Race and Sexuality
• Race and Violence
• Race and Youth
• Race in Global Perspective
• Race, Organizations, and Movements
• Rational Choice
• Relationships
• Religion and the Public Sphere
• Residential Segregation
• Revolutions
• Role Theory
• Rural Sociology
• Scientific Networks
• Secularization
• Sequence Analysis
• Sex versus Gender
• Sexual Identity
• Sexualities
• Sexuality Across the Life Course
• Simmel, Georg
• Single Parents in Context
• Small Cities
• Social Capital
• Social Change
• Social Closure
• Social Construction of Crime
• Social Control
• Social Darwinism
• Social Disorganization Theory
• Social Epidemiology
• Social History
• Social Indicators
• Social Mobility
• Social Movements
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Networks
• Social Policy
• Social Problems
• Social Psychology
• Social Stratification
• Social Theory
• Socialization, Sociological Perspectives on
• Sociolinguistics
• Sociological Approaches to Character
• Sociological Research on the Chinese Society
• Sociological Research, Qualitative Methods in
• Sociological Research, Quantitative Methods in
• Sociology, History of
• Sociology of Manners
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of War, The
• Suburbanism
• Survey Methods
• Symbolic Boundaries
• Symbolic Interactionism
• The Division of Labor after Durkheim
• Tilly, Charles
• Time Use and Childcare
• Time Use and Time Diary Research
• Tourism, Sociology of
• Transnational Adoption
• Unions and Inequality
• Urban Ethnography
• Urban Growth Machine
• Urban Inequality in the United States
• Veblen, Thorstein
• Visual Arts, Music, and Aesthetic Experience
• Wallerstein, Immanuel
• Welfare, Race, and the American Imagination
• Welfare States
• Women’s Employment and Economic Inequality Between Househo...
• Work and Employment, Sociology of
• Work/Life Balance
• Workplace Flexibility
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|195.216.135.184]
• 195.216.135.184

Social Science Research Methods

• Research Fundamentals
• Qualitative Data Analysis

Structured Interviews

Structured interviews ask the same questions of all participants. This means that the interviewer sticks to the same wording and sequence for each individual they interview, even asking predetermined follow-up questions. The questions in a structured interview should still be open-ended, even if they are predetermined. This allows participants to still freely articulate their answers based on personal experiences and beliefs. Structured interviews make use of an “interview guide” in which all the questions are written out in advance. You can learn how to do so in the “ Creating an Interview Guide ” section.

The primary advantage of structured interviews is that they allow the interview analysis process to move a lot faster. Having predetermined questions means you can gather data that is easily comparable across different participants. It is also useful for reducing bias when several interviewers are involved since each researcher is asking the exact same questions worded in the same way. 

However, because of their rigid nature, structured interviews might not give you the entire picture. Pre-determined questions can prevent the interviewer from fully exploring a new topic as it comes up. Keep in mind that although all the questions are the same, all participants are not the same. This may cause different participants to interpret each question differently, which could therefore produce inconsistent data. 

For Example …

Elite universities are launching points for a wide variety of meaningful careers. Yet, year after year at the most selective universities, nearly half of graduating seniors head to a surprisingly narrow band of professional options. To understand why graduates “funnel” into the same consulting, finance, and tech fields, Amy Binder and colleagues interviewed more than 50 students and recent alumni from Harvard and Stanford Universities. Choosing structured interviews made sense to make sure the researchers asked each participant the same questions about their family background, choosing a college, academic major, careers, and help from their university in thinking about careers. This spectrum of questions gave Professor Binder coverage of students at all points in the job search process and helped identify how students developed their career aspirations ( Binder et al., 2015 )

The pros and cons of structured interviews are laid out in the chart below:

• Please give us feedback on this specific page! This helps us improve our site. Below you can tell us if our content is unclear, confusing, or incomplete. You can tell us if our site functions are confusing, broken, or have other issues. You can also inform us of any edits or proofreading we missed. If there are any other issues or concerns with this page, please let us know!
• Issues with content
• Issues with functionality
• Issues with editing/proofreading
• Please explain your answer(s) above. You can copy and paste text from the page to highlight specific issues.
• Hidden page URL
• Hidden page title

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Structured Interview

A structured interview is one where the interviewer sticks rigidly to a pre-written set of questions. It is effectively an individually-administered questionnaire and could have open or closed questions or a mixture of both.

An advantage of a structured interview over a questionnaire is that there will be a high response rate and people are more likely to give honest responses. Compared with semi-structured or unstructured interviews they can be more reliable, as the exact same interview can be repeated.

A disadvantage compared with other types of interview is that it is much less valid. The interviewer has to persist with a particular line of questioning even if the interviewee has other interesting things to say. Compared with a postal questionnaire, it is time-consuming and unlikely to be able to get as large a sample.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Quantitative Research Methods (Online Lesson)

Online Lessons

Research Methods - Interviews

Topic Videos

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define and describe the scientific method.
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research.
• Describe the function and importance of an interpretive framework.
• Describe the differences in accuracy, reliability and validity in a research study.

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered social patterns in the workplace that have transformed industries, in families that have enlightened family members, and in education that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the question is formed, the sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the social world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of six prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scientific scholarship.

Sociological research does not reduce knowledge to right or wrong facts. Results of studies tend to provide people with insights they did not have before—explanations of human behaviors and social practices and access to knowledge of other cultures, rituals and beliefs, or trends and attitudes.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes or results. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists often look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might also study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, social researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This does not mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in collecting and analyzing data in research studies.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963). Typically, the scientific method has 6 steps which are described below.

Step 1: Ask a Question or Find a Research Topic

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, select a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geographic location and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. Sociologists strive to frame questions that examine well-defined patterns and relationships.

In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?”

Step 2: Review the Literature/Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library, a thorough online search, and a survey of academic journals will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted, identify gaps in understanding of the topic, and position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study crime, a researcher might also sort through existing data from the court system, police database, prison information, interviews with criminals, guards, wardens, etc. It’s important to examine this information in addition to existing research to determine how these resources might be used to fill holes in existing knowledge. Reviewing existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve a research study design.

Step 3: Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a conjecture about the relationship between the phenomenon and one or more causal factors. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. For example, a hypothesis might be in the form of an “if, then statement.” Let’s relate this to our topic of crime: If unemployment increases, then the crime rate will increase.

In scientific research, we formulate hypotheses to include an independent variables (IV) , which are the cause of the change, and a dependent variable (DV) , which is the effect , or thing that is changed. In the example above, unemployment is the independent variable and the crime rate is the dependent variable.

In a sociological study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

Taking an example from Table 12.1, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Note, however, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. A sociologist might predict that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying related two topics or variables is not enough. Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Step 4: Design and Conduct a Study

Researchers design studies to maximize reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group or what will happen in one situation will happen in another. Cooking is a science. When you follow a recipe and measure ingredients with a cooking tool, such as a measuring cup, the same results is obtained as long as the cook follows the same recipe and uses the same type of tool. The measuring cup introduces accuracy into the process. If a person uses a less accurate tool, such as their hand, to measure ingredients rather than a cup, the same result may not be replicated. Accurate tools and methods increase reliability.

Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. To produce reliable and valid results, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define each concept, or variable, in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. Moreover, researchers can determine whether the experiment or method validly represent the phenomenon they intended to study.

A study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, might define “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” However, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” For the results to be replicated and gain acceptance within the broader scientific community, researchers would have to use a standard operational definition. These definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

We will explore research methods in greater detail in the next section of this chapter.

Step 5: Draw Conclusions

After constructing the research design, sociologists collect, tabulate or categorize, and analyze data to formulate conclusions. If the analysis supports the hypothesis, researchers can discuss the implications of the results for the theory or policy solution that they were addressing. If the analysis does not support the hypothesis, researchers may consider repeating the experiment or think of ways to improve their procedure.

However, even when results contradict a sociologist’s prediction of a study’s outcome, these results still contribute to sociological understanding. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While many assume that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results may substantiate or contradict it.

Sociologists carefully keep in mind how operational definitions and research designs impact the results as they draw conclusions. Consider the concept of “increase of crime,” which might be defined as the percent increase in crime from last week to this week, as in the study of Swedish crime discussed above. Yet the data used to evaluate “increase of crime” might be limited by many factors: who commits the crime, where the crimes are committed, or what type of crime is committed. If the data is gathered for “crimes committed in Houston, Texas in zip code 77021,” then it may not be generalizable to crimes committed in rural areas outside of major cities like Houston. If data is collected about vandalism, it may not be generalizable to assault.

Step 6: Report Results

Researchers report their results at conferences and in academic journals. These results are then subjected to the scrutiny of other sociologists in the field. Before the conclusions of a study become widely accepted, the studies are often repeated in the same or different environments. In this way, sociological theories and knowledge develops as the relationships between social phenomenon are established in broader contexts and different circumstances.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on empirical data and the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework, sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective , seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge or understanding about the human experience.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects including storytelling. This type of researcher learns through the process and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociology focuses on deconstruction of existing sociological research and theory. Informed by the work of Karl Marx, scholars known collectively as the Frankfurt School proposed that social science, as much as any academic pursuit, is embedded in the system of power constituted by the set of class, caste, race, gender, and other relationships that exist in the society. Consequently, it cannot be treated as purely objective. Critical sociologists view theories, methods, and the conclusions as serving one of two purposes: they can either legitimate and rationalize systems of social power and oppression or liberate humans from inequality and restriction on human freedom. Deconstruction can involve data collection, but the analysis of this data is not empirical or positivist.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-1-approaches-to-sociological-research

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Find Study Materials for

• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Social Studies
• Browse all subjects
• Read our Magazine

Create Study Materials

In an interview scenario, which type of interview is ideal? One that produces concise, direct answers or one that produces detailed answers with reasoning?

Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.

• Explanations
• StudySmarter AI
• Textbook Solutions
• American Identity
• Beliefs in Society
• Crime and Deviance
• Cultural Identity
• Education With Methods in Context
• Families and Households
• Famous Sociologists
• Global Development
• Research Methods in Sociology
• Social Institutions
• Social Relationships
• Social Stratification
• Sociological Approach
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Stratification and Differentiation
• American Sociological Association
• Case Studies
• Ethnography
• Experiments
• Field Research
• Founders of Sociology
• Functionalism
• Interpretivism
• Longitudinal Studies
• Observation
• Official Statistics
• Postmodernism
• Questionnaire
• Research Considerations
• Research Design
• Social Action Theory
• Social Policy
• Sociological Imagination
• Sociological Research Methods
• Sociological Theories
• Sociology as a Science
• Sources of Data
• Types of Data
• Value Neutrality
• Values in Research
• What is the Study of Sociology?
• Work Poverty And Welfare

Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken

Nie wieder prokastinieren mit unseren Lernerinnerungen.

You'd probably claim that this depends entirely on the interview context. For a job interview, the interviewer would most likely prefer answers that go into detail about the interviewee's background. For a focus group interview, the interviewer might prefer direct answers that help them improve their product or service.

This is one reason why it is important to consider which type of interview is most suitable for a sociological researcher.

In this explanation, we will talk about types of interviews in sociology , including structured interviews, semi-structured and group interviews.

• We'll also consider the advantages and disadvantages of each different type of interview.
• Then, we will discuss a feminist approach to researching women’s experiences and the role interviews play in them.

What is an interview?

Before we study them closer, let's define 'interviews'.

An interview refers to verbal interactions between an interviewer and one or more respondents. Interviews can be conducted in person, on the phone, or through video chat. But in each case, they are more direct and personal interactions between the interviewer and the respondent than, for example, questionnaires.

The interview method in sociology

The interview is one of the primary methods of sociological data collection. They are usually used by sociologists to research more sensitive or complex subjects, and to gain in-depth knowledge of people’s ways of thinking and feeling about a specific topic.

To conduct them, researchers must create an interview schedule . In the case of structured interviews, this means a pre-prepared list of questions the researcher aims to cover. In the case of unstructured or group interviews, the interview schedule usually consists of a collection of subjects and topics that the respondents are supposed to discuss.

After the interview, the researcher has to create a transcript , which means they have to reproduce everything said during the interview in a written format. In order to do this well, researchers usually record their interviews.

Interview style : The type and/or style of an interview depends on the preferences of the researchers. Some sociologists choose to establish a personal connection with the interviewees based on empathy and trust, while others go the opposite way. Howard Becker (1970) claimed that the aggressive interviewing style works very well in revealing hidden racist biases in people.

Types of interviews in sociology

There are a number of interview formats used in sociological research: structured, unstructured, semi-structured, and group interviews.

• Structured interviews

These are often referred to as formal or standardised interviews . Their main characteristic is that the interviewer has a set list of questions which they ask of all the respondents in the same order, in the same way. This list is essentially a pre-written questionnaire , which the interviewer asks in person to each participant.

The structured interview is considered to be a quantitative research method since it allows comparison between the respondents. It is usually used for surface-level research into their lives.

Advantages of structured interviews

The discussions are easy to replicate and standardise.

Since everyone is asked the same questions, the answers are comparable .

Reliable conclusions can be drawn from the groups of respondents and eventually the target population, based on quantitative data.

It is conducted verbally, so it tends to provide more detailed answers than a questionnaire .

It is very effective in assessing the respondent’s initial thoughts and feelings about a certain subject. Interesting points may arise that can be further discovered through unstructured interviews.

Disadvantages of structured interviews

Can be time-consuming and costly , depending on the number of respondents.

Have to be planned in advance .

The quality of answers depends on the quality and relevance of the questions asked. The questions cannot be changed over time or from one interviewee to another, so a lot depends on the initial set of questions.

Structured interviews rarely provide in-depth information, especially on sensitive topics.

Examples of structured interviews in sociology

The research of Young and Willmott (1962) on the importance of the extended family was based on structured interviews. They wanted to focus on the whole of London, so structured interviews were a good choice in terms of time efficiency. Structured interviews also provided high generalisability in their research on the extended family.

• Unstructured interviews

These are also known as informal or discovery interviews . An unstructured interview resembles a guided conversation where both the interviewer and the interviewee can ask various questions about a specific topic, regardless of what the researcher asked other respondents.

The goal of unstructured interviews is to gain an understanding of the complex behaviour, thoughts, and feelings of the respondent. This makes them very useful for examining sensitive topics .

Some sociologists claim that unstructured interviews are the most effective when they are combined with participant observation .

Advantages of unstructured interviews

The interviewee is empowered in an unstructured interview through their ability to ask their own questions, guide the conversation, and have the interviewer ask questions the respondent regards as important.

At the same time, the interviewer also has the flexibility to change the direction of an interview if it seems to be leading nowhere.

Unstructured interviews can be extended . There is space and time for the interviewee to express and explain themselves, and to ask follow-up questions if they didn’t understand something.

The informal style allows interviewees to feel at ease, be open and honest , even about sensitive subjects. Joan Smith (1998) used unstructured interviews to gain detailed information on the familial backgrounds of young homeless people.

The interviewee is a participant in the research. Feminists regard this as the strongest point of unstructured interviews.

They are a relatively fast way of discovering detailed information.

Disadvantages of uns tructured interviews

The biggest criticism of unstructured interviews is that they provide unreliable sociological data. Positivists are especially critical of it.

Respondents are asked different questions, so it is difficult to compare them, or draw conclusions about the sample group.

Interviewer bias weakens the validity of the interview. The interviewer’s body language, ways of phrasing certain questions, and reacting to them might influence the respondents' answers.

The class, gender, and ethnicity of the interviewer can affect the answers of the respondents. J. Allan Williams Jr (1971) found that African-Americans were less likely to claim that they supported the civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s when the interviewer was white, and not Black.

Unstructured interviews are non-replicable . It is often the trust between the interviewer and interviewee that produces an in-depth conversation, but this trust is very dependent on luck.

They are time-consuming and costly .

If the researcher lacks interpersonal skills and training, they might find it difficult to conduct successful unstructured interviews.

The researcher must be ethical with the personal knowledge they gain. Respondents can be significantly harmed if the information is used unethically.

Examples of unstructured interviews in sociology

Dobash and Dobash (1971) researched domestic violence with the help of police reports and unstructured interviews. The unstructured interviews allowed the researchers to create a safer and more comfortable environment for the participants and ask further questions. They discovered important things that the victims did not mention in the police reports.

Feminism and unstructured interviews

Feminist sociologists often use unstructured interviews, as they believe this format empowers their respondents and makes sure that their true voices are heard, unlike in the case of traditional, structured interviews.

Feminists argue that emotions have an important role in the pursuit of truth because feelings are the result of social action. Since emotions can only be studied (or even noticed) in an unstructured, in-depth interview where the interviewees feel at ease, they are preferable.

In such conversational interviews, the hierarchy between researcher and subject disappears, and the people studied are also less likely to be exploited . According to feminists, women were especially exploited through traditional interviews, because the data collected was then misinterpreted and used against women’s interests.

The British sociologist Ann Oakley is a big supporter of unstructured interviews. In 1974, she interviewed women before and after they gave birth. The interviews were long and in-depth. She noted that all the women asked her questions during the interviews, which she tried to answer as honestly and extensively as she could.

This was to create an environment where the interviewees were just as much a part of creating the research as she was. Oakley also found that the women became interested in the research and later called her to share even more information.

• Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews are interviews where the researcher has a fixed list of questions, which is the same for each respondent. However, they have a degree of flexibility as researchers can diverge from the questions and ask different ones if the conversation goes in a new direction.

• Group interviews

Group interviews are interviews where the researcher asks questions from more than one respondent at the same place and time. They tend to be unstructured, and their success is highly dependent on the dynamics of the group. This means that they are especially difficult to replicate.

Examples of group interviews in sociology

Wright et al. (2005) conducted research on the educational experience of African-Caribbean boys. They used group interviews. The students felt more comfortable among their friends and gave fuller answers to the questions. Wright et al. found out that the boys felt excluded and discriminated against in school.

Interviews - Key takeaways

• An interview is a series of verbal interactions between an interviewer and one or more respondents.
• In a structured interview, the interviewer establishes a set list of questions , which they ask of all the respondents in the same order, in the same way.
• An unstructured interview resembles a guided conversation, where both the interviewer and the interviewee can ask various questions about a specific topic, regardless of what exactly the research was talking about with other respondents.
• Semi-structured interviews are interviews where the researcher has a set list of questions, which is the same for each respondent. However, they can diverge from the questions and ask different ones if the conversation goes in a new direction.
• Group interviews are interviews where the researcher asks questions from more than one respondent at the same place and time.

Frequently Asked Questions about Interviews

--> what are the different types of interviews, --> what is a structured interview.

The main characteristic of a structured interview is that the interviewer has a set list of questions , which they ask of all the respondents in the same order, in the same way. The question list is essentially a pre-written questionnaire, which the interviewer asks each and every participant.

--> What is semi structured interview?

--> what is an unstructured interview.

An unstructured interview resembles a guided conversation where both the interviewer and the interviewee are able to ask various questions about a specific topic, regardless of what the researcher asked other respondents. The goal of unstructured interviews is to gain an understanding of the complex behaviour, thoughts, and feelings of the respondent. This makes them very useful for examining sensitive topics .

--> What is the interview method in sociology?

The interview is one of the primary methods of sociological data collection. They are usually used by sociologists to research more sensitive or complex subjects and to gain in-depth knowledge of people’s ways of thinking and feeling about a specific topic. 

First, researchers must create an  interview schedule . After the interview, the researcher has to create a  transcript , which means they have to reproduce everything said during the interview in a written format. In order to do this well, researchers usually  record their interviews. 

An interview is a verbal interaction between an interviewer and one or more respondents. Interviews can be conducted in person, on the phone or through video chat. But in each case, they are a more direct and personal interaction between the interviewer and the respondent than a questionnaire. 

Which method of sociological data collection does the interview belong to?

The interview is one of the  primary methods of sociological data collection.

What is in the interview schedule?

In the case of structured interviews, the interview schedule contains the set list of questions the researcher aims to cover. In the case of unstructured or group interviews, the interview schedule usually consists of a collection of subjects and topics that the respondents are supposed to discuss. 

Why do researchers usually record their interviews?

After the interview, the researcher has to create a  transcript , which means they have to reproduce everything said at the interview in a written format. In order to do this well, researchers usually  record their interviews.

What are the four types of interview in sociology?

• Structured interview
• Unstructured interview
• Semi-structured interview
• Group interview

What are the advantages of structured interviews?

Since everyone is asked the same questions, the answers are comparable . 

Reliable conclusions can be made about the groups of respondents and eventually the target population, based on quantitative data.

It is conducted verbally so it tends to provide more detailed  answers than a questionnaire.

It is very good for assessing the respondent’s initial thoughts  and feelings about a certain subject. Interesting points may arise that can be further discovered through unstructured interviews.

Learn with 15 Interviews flashcards in the free StudySmarter app

Already have an account? Log in

• Theories and Methods

of the users don't pass the Interviews quiz! Will you pass the quiz?

How would you like to learn this content?

Free social-studies cheat sheet!

Everything you need to know on . A perfect summary so you can easily remember everything.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

This is still free to read, it's not a paywall.

You need to register to keep reading, create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Entdecke Lernmaterial in der StudySmarter-App

• Sociology Programs
• Family Studies Program
• Opportunities
• Master’s Program
• PhD Program
• Research Streams
• Projects & Initiatives
• Sojourners: Undergraduate Journal of Sociology
• Distinguished Speaker Series
• Sociology Research Forum
• Job Opportunities
• Indigeneity, Equity and Diversity
• Student Health and Wellness Resources
• Faculty and Staff Health and Wellness Resources
• Community Food Garden

2024 Sociology Undergraduate Research Conference Winners

April 30, 2024

Congratulations to the winners of this year’s Sociology Undergraduate Research Conference!

From left to right: Gabrielle Isabel Abando, Matthew Graham, and Lillie Goodson.

This year’s judging panel was comprised of past Honours students and members of the Sociology Students Association.

Presentations were judged on five criteria: effectiveness of arguments, audience engagement, organization and cohesiveness of presentation, visual support, and responses to Q&A.

Matthew Graham was the first place winner with his presentation on his honours thesis analysing news coverage on Canada’s policy shift to screening the sexual history of every potential blood donor.

The second place winner, Gabrielle Isabel Abando, presented on her honours thesis examining the everyday experiences of Filipino Canadians in local neighbourhoods and communities and exploring how specific spatial mechanisms make for a functional Filipino Canadian community.

Lillie Goodson rounded out the podium with her thesis exploring the ways that LGBTQ+ people negotiate their LGBTQ+ identities while participating in outdoor activities and outdoor communities.

You can read the winning abstracts below!

1st Place: Matthew Graham

Removing the gbMSM Demographic From Blood Donation Screening: Analysing News Coverage on Canada’s Shift to Individualised Sexual Behaviour Screening

In 2021, Canada amended its blood donation laws to screen every potential donor’s sexual history rather than screen only gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (gbMSM). While scholars and LGBTQ+ community members have called on the Canadian and international governments to adjust this blood law for years, a research gap persists regarding how the general Canadian public and media view this policy change. Thus, this paper determines how Canadian newspapers portray the policy change leading up to, as well as following, the amendment.

Additionally, this paper uses post-gay theory to investigate the level of gay-acceptance in Canadian society. The data is based on an analysis of Canadian newspapers (n=109) consisting of national, provincial, and local newspapers, and omitting non-Canadian reports on the matter. Canadian views on gbMSM have been increasingly positive overtime, and Canadian blood legislation has eased its deferral periods with little backlash in the past decade.

Combining these factors, this study expects to find that most newspaper articles will first validate the amendment by highlighting blood science approving the change, and subsequently highlight the positive effect the amendment will have on the overall Canadian blood supply. Thus, this research expects to find Canadian news sources positively reporting on the change.

This research will contribute to the growing literature on post-gay theory, but in a Canadian context. Furthermore, demonstrating the current level of acceptance regarding gbMSM in Canada.

2nd Place: Gabrielle Isabel Abando

‘Tao Po!’ An exploration of the role of Filipino Canadian neighbourhoods in anchoring and cultivating Filipino Canadian community

Filipinos comprise the fourth-largest visible minority group in Canada. With 95% of current Filipinos in Canada arriving after 1970, the Filipino Canadian community is standing at a crucial point demographically. The first generations have established their families, the second generation is coming of age and establishing their own new families, and a new generation of third-generation Filipino Canadians is being ushered in.

Current literature on Filipino Canadians focuses mostly on macro geopolitical relations that draw Filipinos out into Canada, but less research examines the everyday experiences of Filipino Canadians in local neighbourhoods and communities.

This paper addresses this gap by asking how specific spatial mechanisms make for a functional Filipino Canadian community. To address this question, I use a case study of the Joyce-Collingwood neighbourhood, locally known as ‘Filipinotown’, in the globalizing and diversifying city of Vancouver. This project uses a combination of ethnography and semi-structured interviews to better understand how the spatial composition of Joyce-Collingwood shapes the Filipino Canadian experience. I examine the unique attachments Filipino Canadians make to this space, and thus the vital role these neighbourhoods play in cultivating and maintaining community.

Findings include the creation and maintenance of hybrid Filipino and Canadian cultural identities, a sense of Canadian belonging enabled by access to Filipino cultural spaces and products in businesses, and evidence for the ‘spatial legacy’ for ethnic neighbourhoods across immigrant generations.

3rd Place: Lillie Goodson

“Out in the Outdoors”: The importance of LGBTQ+ inclusivity in the outdoors.

Inclusivity has been a hot topic in various outdoor communities over the past decade. Despite this, research and discussion about the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in the outdoors are lacking.

To fill this gap, this study uses qualitative research methods to explore the ways that LGBTQ+ people negotiate their LGBTQ+ identities while participating in outdoor activities and outdoor communities. Twenty-one LGBTQ+ people were interviewed about their experiences in these spaces. Initial thematic analyses indicate that LGBTQ+ people were less likely to disclose their sexuality or gender identity when they were participating in outdoor activities with people who do not identify as LGBTQ+. Some respondents shared that this was because they felt as though it would jeopardize the trust between them, and thus, compromise the safety of all involved parties.

Analyses also found that participants often used the word “indifferent” to describe the attitudes of cisgender heterosexual people in outdoors communities towards LGBTQ+ people. When asked to describe what they meant by this, some participants indicated that this indifference did not necessarily make these spaces feel inclusive and that, rather, “there's no neutral position to hold within [a structure with a history of exclusion]”. These are just a few of many themes in this study that point towards the urgent need to reconsider what it means for an outdoor space to be inclusive to LGBTQ+ people.

The goal of this analysis is to contribute to the conversation about how these attitudes influence when LGBTQ+ people feel safe and welcome in the outdoors and when they do not. The findings of this study could be used as a resource to inform outdoor groups and organizations of the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in the outdoors so that they can effectively implement programs, systems, and policies that contribute to the inclusion and support of LGBTQ+ people in these spaces.

Recent News

Prof. andrew jorgenson reflects on the history and trajectory of sociology and the climate crisis.

Prof. Amanda Cheong named a Public Humanities Hub Faculty Fellow for 2024-25

Why are single-child families now common in B.C.? Prof. Yue Qian comments in the Vancouver Sun