semi structured vs structured interview in research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Fam Med Community Health
• v.7(2); 2019

Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour

Melissa dejonckheere.

1 Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Lisa M Vaughn

2 Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

3 Division of Emergency Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Associated Data

fmch-2018-000057supp001.pdf

Semistructured in-depth interviews are commonly used in qualitative research and are the most frequent qualitative data source in health services research. This method typically consists of a dialogue between researcher and participant, guided by a flexible interview protocol and supplemented by follow-up questions, probes and comments. The method allows the researcher to collect open-ended data, to explore participant thoughts, feelings and beliefs about a particular topic and to delve deeply into personal and sometimes sensitive issues. The purpose of this article was to identify and describe the essential skills to designing and conducting semistructured interviews in family medicine and primary care research settings. We reviewed the literature on semistructured interviewing to identify key skills and components for using this method in family medicine and primary care research settings. Overall, semistructured interviewing requires both a relational focus and practice in the skills of facilitation. Skills include: (1) determining the purpose and scope of the study; (2) identifying participants; (3) considering ethical issues; (4) planning logistical aspects; (5) developing the interview guide; (6) establishing trust and rapport; (7) conducting the interview; (8) memoing and reflection; (9) analysing the data; (10) demonstrating the trustworthiness of the research; and (11) presenting findings in a paper or report. Semistructured interviews provide an effective and feasible research method for family physicians to conduct in primary care research settings. Researchers using semistructured interviews for data collection should take on a relational focus and consider the skills of interviewing to ensure quality. Semistructured interviewing can be a powerful tool for family physicians, primary care providers and other health services researchers to use to understand the thoughts, beliefs and experiences of individuals. Despite the utility, semistructured interviews can be intimidating and challenging for researchers not familiar with qualitative approaches. In order to elucidate this method, we provide practical guidance for researchers, including novice researchers and those with few resources, to use semistructured interviewing as a data collection strategy. We provide recommendations for the essential steps to follow in order to best implement semistructured interviews in family medicine and primary care research settings.

Introduction

Semistructured interviews can be used by family medicine researchers in clinical settings or academic settings even with few resources. In contrast to large-scale epidemiological studies, or even surveys, a family medicine researcher can conduct a highly meaningful project with interviews with as few as 8–12 participants. For example, Chang and her colleagues, all family physicians, conducted semistructured interviews with 10 providers to understand their perspectives on weight gain in pregnant patients. 1 The interviewers asked questions about providers’ overall perceptions on weight gain, their clinical approach to weight gain during pregnancy and challenges when managing weight gain among pregnant patients. Additional examples conducted by or with family physicians or in primary care settings are summarised in table 1 . 1–6

Examples of research articles using semistructured interviews in primary care research

From our perspective as seasoned qualitative researchers, conducting effective semistructured interviews requires: (1) a relational focus, including active engagement and curiosity, and (2) practice in the skills of interviewing. First, a relational focus emphasises the unique relationship between interviewer and interviewee. To obtain quality data, interviews should not be conducted with a transactional question-answer approach but rather should be unfolding, iterative interactions between the interviewer and interviewee. Second, interview skills can be learnt. Some of us will naturally be more comfortable and skilful at conducting interviews but all aspects of interviews are learnable and through practice and feedback will improve. Throughout this article, we highlight strategies to balance relationship and rigour when conducting semistructured interviews in primary care and the healthcare setting.

Qualitative research interviews are ‘attempts to understand the world from the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples’ experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations’ (p 1). 7 Qualitative research interviews unfold as an interviewer asks questions of the interviewee in order to gather subjective information about a particular topic or experience. Though the definitions and purposes of qualitative research interviews vary slightly in the literature, there is common emphasis on the experiences of interviewees and the ways in which the interviewee perceives the world (see table 2 for summary of definitions from seminal texts).

Definitions of qualitative interviews

The most common type of interview used in qualitative research and the healthcare context is semistructured interview. 8 Figure 1 highlights the key features of this data collection method, which is guided by a list of topics or questions with follow-up questions, probes and comments. Typically, the sequencing and wording of the questions are modified by the interviewer to best fit the interviewee and interview context. Semistructured interviews can be conducted in multiple ways (ie, face to face, telephone, text/email, individual, group, brief, in-depth), each of which have advantages and disadvantages. We will focus on the most common form of semistructured interviews within qualitative research—individual, face-to-face, in-depth interviews.

Key characteristics of semistructured interviews.

Purpose of semistructured interviews

The overall purpose of using semistructured interviews for data collection is to gather information from key informants who have personal experiences, attitudes, perceptions and beliefs related to the topic of interest. Researchers can use semistructured interviews to collect new, exploratory data related to a research topic, triangulate other data sources or validate findings through member checking (respondent feedback about research results). 9 If using a mixed methods approach, semistructured interviews can also be used in a qualitative phase to explore new concepts to generate hypotheses or explain results from a quantitative phase that tests hypotheses. Semistructured interviews are an effective method for data collection when the researcher wants: (1) to collect qualitative, open-ended data; (2) to explore participant thoughts, feelings and beliefs about a particular topic; and (3) to delve deeply into personal and sometimes sensitive issues.

Designing and conducting semistructured interviews

In the following section, we provide recommendations for the steps required to carefully design and conduct semistructured interviews with emphasis on applications in family medicine and primary care research (see table 3 ).

Steps to designing and conducting semistructured interviews

Steps for designing and conducting semistructured interviews

Step 1: determining the purpose and scope of the study.

The purpose of the study is the primary objective of your project and may be based on an anecdotal experience, a review of the literature or previous research finding. The purpose is developed in response to an identified gap or problem that needs to be addressed.

Research questions are the driving force of a study because they are associated with every other aspect of the design. They should be succinct and clearly indicate that you are using a qualitative approach. Qualitative research questions typically start with ‘What’, ‘How’ or ‘Why’ and focus on the exploration of a single concept based on participant perspectives. 10

Step 2: identifying participants

After deciding on the purpose of the study and research question(s), the next step is to determine who will provide the best information to answer the research question. Good interviewees are those who are available, willing to be interviewed and have lived experiences and knowledge about the topic of interest. 11 12 Working with gatekeepers or informants to get access to potential participants can be extremely helpful as they are trusted sources that control access to the target sample.

Sampling strategies are influenced by the research question and the purpose of the study. Unlike quantitative studies, statistical representativeness is not the goal of qualitative research. There is no calculation of statistical power and the goal is not a large sample size. Instead, qualitative approaches seek an in-depth and detailed understanding and typically use purposeful sampling. See the study of Hatch for a summary of various types of purposeful sampling that can be used for interview studies. 12

‘How many participants are needed?’ The most common answer is, ‘it depends’—it depends on the purpose of the study, what kind of study is planned and what questions the study is trying to answer. 12–14 One common standard in qualitative sample sizes is reaching thematic saturation, which refers to the point at which no new thematic information is gathered from participants. Malterud and colleagues discuss the concept of information power , or a qualitative equivalent to statistical power, to determine how many interviews should be collected in a study. They suggest that the size of a sample should depend on the aim, homogeneity of the sample, theory, interview quality and analytic strategy. 14

Step 3: considering ethical issues

An ethical attitude should be present from the very beginning of the research project even before you decide who to interview. 15 This ethical attitude should incorporate respect, sensitivity and tact towards participants throughout the research process. Because semistructured interviewing often requires the participant to reveal sensitive and personal information directly to the interviewer, it is important to consider the power imbalance between the researcher and the participant. In healthcare settings, the interviewer or researcher may be a part of the patient’s healthcare team or have contact with the healthcare team. The researchers should ensure the interviewee that their participation and answers will not influence the care they receive or their relationship with their providers. Other issues to consider include: reducing the risk of harm; protecting the interviewee’s information; adequately informing interviewees about the study purpose and format; and reducing the risk of exploitation. 10

Step 4: planning logistical aspects

Careful planning particularly around the technical aspects of interviews can be the difference between a great interview and a not so great interview. During the preparation phase, the researcher will need to plan and make decisions about the best ways to contact potential interviewees, obtain informed consent, arrange interview times and locations convenient for both participant and researcher, and test recording equipment. Although many experienced researchers have found themselves conducting interviews in less than ideal locations, the interview location should avoid (or at least minimise) interruptions and be appropriate for the interview (quiet, private and able to get a clear recording). 16 For some research projects, the participants’ homes may make sense as the best interview location. 16

Initial contacts can be made through telephone or email and followed up with more details so the individual can make an informed decision about whether they wish to be interviewed. Potential participants should know what to expect in terms of length of time, purpose of the study, why they have been selected and who will be there. In addition, participants should be informed that they can refuse to answer questions or can withdraw from the study at any time, including during the interview itself.

Audio recording the interview is recommended so that the interviewer can concentrate on the interview and build rapport rather than being distracted with extensive note taking 16 (see table 4 for audio-recording tips). Participants should be informed that audio recording is used for data collection and that they can refuse to be audio recorded should they prefer.

Suggestions for successful audio recording of interviews

Most researchers will want to have interviews transcribed verbatim from the audio recording. This allows you to refer to the exact words of participants during the analysis. Although it is possible to conduct analyses from the audio recordings themselves or from notes, it is not ideal. However, transcription can be extremely time consuming and, if not done yourself, can be costly.

In the planning phase of research, you will want to consider whether qualitative research software (eg, NVivo, ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA, Dedoose, and so on) will be used to assist with organising, managing and analysis. While these tools are helpful in the management of qualitative data, it is important to consider your research budget, the cost of the software and the learning curve associated with using a new system.

Step 5: developing the interview guide

Semistructured interviews include a short list of ‘guiding’ questions that are supplemented by follow-up and probing questions that are dependent on the interviewee’s responses. 8 17 All questions should be open ended, neutral, clear and avoid leading language. In addition, questions should use familiar language and avoid jargon.

Most interviews will start with an easy, context-setting question before moving to more difficult or in-depth questions. 17 Table 5 gives details of the types of guiding questions including ‘grand tour’ questions, 18 core questions and planned and unplanned follow-up questions.

Questions and prompts in semistructured interviewing

To illustrate, online supplementary appendix A presents a sample interview guide from our study of weight gain during pregnancy among young women. We start with the prompt, ‘Tell me about how your pregnancy has been so far’ to initiate conversation about their thoughts and feelings during pregnancy. The subsequent questions will elicit responses to help answer our research question about young women’s perspectives related to weight gain during pregnancy.

Supplementary data

After developing the guiding questions, it is important to pilot test the interview. Having a good sense of the guide helps you to pace the interview (and not run out of time), use a conversational tone and make necessary adjustments to the questions.

Like all qualitative research, interviewing is iterative in nature—data collection and analysis occur simultaneously, which may result in changes to the guiding questions as the study progresses. Questions that are not effective may be replaced with other questions and additional probes can be added to explore new topics that are introduced by participants in previous interviews. 10

Step 6: establishing trust and rapport

Interviews are a special form of relationship, where the interviewer and interviewee converse about important and often personal topics. The interviewer must build rapport quickly by listening attentively and respectfully to the information shared by the interviewee. 19 As the interview progresses, the interviewer must continue to demonstrate respect, encourage the interviewee to share their perspectives and acknowledge the sensitive nature of the conversation. 20

To establish rapport, it is important to be authentic and open to the interviewee’s point of view. It is possible that the participants you recruit for your study will have preconceived notions about research, which may include mistrust. As a result, it is important to describe why you are conducting the research and how their participation is meaningful. In an interview relationship, the interviewee is the expert and should be treated as such—you are relying on the interviewee to enhance your understanding and add to your research. Small behaviours that can enhance rapport include: dressing professionally but not overly formal; avoiding jargon or slang; and using a normal conversational tone. Because interviewees will be discussing their experience, having some awareness of contextual or cultural factors that may influence their perspectives may be helpful as background knowledge.

Step 7: conducting the interview

Location and set-up.

The interview should have already been scheduled at a convenient time and location for the interviewee. The location should be private, ideally with a closed door, rather than a public place. It is helpful if there is a room where you can speak privately without interruption, and where it is quiet enough to hear and audio record the interview. Within the interview space, Josselson 15 suggests an arrangement with a comfortable distance between the interviewer and interviewee with a low table in between for the recorder and any materials (consent forms, questionnaires, water, and so on).

Beginning the interview

Many interviewers start with chatting to break the ice and attempt to establish commonalities, rapport and trust. Most interviews will need to begin with a brief explanation of the research study, consent/assent procedures, rationale for talking to that particular interviewee and description of the interview format and agenda. 11 It can also be helpful if the interviewer shares a little about who they are and why they are interested in the topic. The recording equipment should have already been tested thoroughly but interviewers may want to double-check that the audio equipment is working and remind participants about the reason for recording.

Interviewer stance

During the interview, the interviewer should adopt a friendly and non-judgemental attitude. You will want to maintain a warm and conversational tone, rather than a rote, question-answer approach. It is important to recognise the potential power differential as a researcher. Conveying a sense of being in the interview together and that you as the interviewer are a person just like the interviewee can help ease any discomfort. 15

Active listening

During a face-to-face interview, there is an opportunity to observe social and non-verbal cues of the interviewee. These cues may come in the form of voice, body language, gestures and intonation, and can supplement the interviewee’s verbal response and can give clues to the interviewer about the process of the interview. 21 Listening is the key to successful interviewing. 22 Listening should be ‘attentive, empathic, nonjudgmental, listening in order to invite, and engender talk’ 15 15 (p 66). Silence, nods, smiles and utterances can also encourage further elaboration from the interviewee.

Continuing the interview

As the interview progresses, the interviewer can repeat the words used by the interviewee, use planned and unplanned follow-up questions that invite further clarification, exploration or elaboration. As DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree 10 explain: ‘Throughout the interview, the goal of the interviewer is to encourage the interviewee to share as much information as possible, unselfconsciously and in his or her own words’ (p 317). Some interviewees are more forthcoming and will offer many details of their experiences without much probing required. Others will require prompting and follow-up to elicit sufficient detail.

As a result, follow-up questions are equally important to the core questions in a semistructured interview. Prompts encourage people to continue talking and they can elicit more details needed to understand the topic. Examples of verbal probes are repeating the participant’s words, summarising the main idea or expressing interest with verbal agreement. 8 11 See table 6 for probing techniques and example probes we have used in our own interviewing.

Probing techniques for semistructured interviews (modified from Bernard 30 )

Step 8: memoing and reflection

After an interview, it is essential for the interviewer to begin to reflect on both the process and the content of the interview. During the actual interview, it can be difficult to take notes or begin reflecting. Even if you think you will remember a particular moment, you likely will not be able to recall each moment with sufficient detail. Therefore, interviewers should always record memos —notes about what you are learning from the data. 23 24 There are different approaches to recording memos: you can reflect on several specific ideas, or create a running list of thoughts. Memos are also useful for improving the quality of subsequent interviews.

Step 9: analysing the data

The data analysis strategy should also be developed during planning stages because analysis occurs concurrently with data collection. 25 The researcher will take notes, modify the data collection procedures and write reflective memos throughout the data collection process. This begins the process of data analysis.

The data analysis strategy used in your study will depend on your research question and qualitative design—see the study of Creswell for an overview of major qualitative approaches. 26 The general process for analysing and interpreting most interviews involves reviewing the data (in the form of transcripts, audio recordings or detailed notes), applying descriptive codes to the data and condensing and categorising codes to look for patterns. 24 27 These patterns can exist within a single interview or across multiple interviews depending on the research question and design. Qualitative computer software programs can be used to help organise and manage interview data.

Step 10: demonstrating the trustworthiness of the research

Similar to validity and reliability, qualitative research can be assessed on trustworthiness. 9 28 There are several criteria used to establish trustworthiness: credibility (whether the findings accurately and fairly represent the data), transferability (whether the findings can be applied to other settings and contexts), confirmability (whether the findings are biased by the researcher) and dependability (whether the findings are consistent and sustainable over time).

Step 11: presenting findings in a paper or report

When presenting the results of interview analysis, researchers will often report themes or narratives that describe the broad range of experiences evidenced in the data. This involves providing an in-depth description of participant perspectives and being sure to include multiple perspectives. 12 In interview research, the participant words are your data. Presenting findings in a report requires the integration of quotes into a more traditional written format.

Conclusions

Though semistructured interviews are often an effective way to collect open-ended data, there are some disadvantages as well. One common problem with interviewing is that not all interviewees make great participants. 12 29 Some individuals are hard to engage in conversation or may be reluctant to share about sensitive or personal topics. Difficulty interviewing some participants can affect experienced and novice interviewers. Some common problems include not doing a good job of probing or asking for follow-up questions, failure to actively listen, not having a well-developed interview guide with open-ended questions and asking questions in an insensitive way. Outside of pitfalls during the actual interview, other problems with semistructured interviewing may be underestimating the resources required to recruit participants, interview, transcribe and analyse the data.

Despite their limitations, semistructured interviews can be a productive way to collect open-ended data from participants. In our research, we have interviewed children and adolescents about their stress experiences and coping behaviours, young women about their thoughts and behaviours during pregnancy, practitioners about the care they provide to patients and countless other key informants about health-related topics. Because the intent is to understand participant experiences, the possible research topics are endless.

Due to the close relationships family physicians have with their patients, the unique settings in which they work, and in their advocacy, semistructured interviews are an attractive approach for family medicine researchers, even if working in a setting with limited research resources. When seeking to balance both the relational focus of interviewing and the necessary rigour of research, we recommend: prioritising listening over talking; using clear language and avoiding jargon; and deeply engaging in the interview process by actively listening, expressing empathy, demonstrating openness to the participant’s worldview and thanking the participant for helping you to understand their experience.

Further Reading

• Edwards R, & Holland J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing?: A&C Black.
• Josselson R. Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: A relational approach. Guilford Press, 2013.
• Kvale S. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE, London, 1996.
• Pope C, & Mays N. (Eds). (2006). Qualitative research in health care.

Correction notice: This article has been corrected. Reference details have been updated.

Contributors: Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient consent for publication: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Semi-structured Interviews

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2020
• pp 4825–4830
• Cite this reference work entry

• Danielle Magaldi 3 &
• Matthew Berler 4  

19k Accesses

56 Citations

Open-ended interview ; Qualitative interview ; Systematic exploratory interview ; Thematic interview

The semi-structured interview is an exploratory interview used most often in the social sciences for qualitative research purposes or to gather clinical data. While it generally follows a guide or protocol that is devised prior to the interview and is focused on a core topic to provide a general structure, the semi-structured interview also allows for discovery, with space to follow topical trajectories as the conversation unfolds.

Introduction

Qualitative interviews exist on a continuum, ranging from free-ranging, exploratory discussions to highly structured interviews. On one end is unstructured interviewing, deployed by approaches such as ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology. This style of interview involves a changing protocol that evolves based on participants’ responses and will differ from one participant to the next. On the other end of the continuum...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Baumbusch, J. (2010). Semi-structured interviewing in practice-close research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing; Hoboken, 15 (3), 255–258.

Article   Google Scholar  

Clarkin, A. J., Ammaniti, M., & Fontana, A. (2015). The use of a psychodynamic semi-structured personality assessment interview in school settings. Adolescent Psychiatry, 5 (4), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.2174/2210676606666160502125435 .

Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. (1987). The Eating Disorder Examination: A semi-structured interview for the assessment of the specific psychopathology of eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198701)6:1<1::AID-EAT2260060102>3.0.CO;2-9 .

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher, 13 (1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40 (4), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x .

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Fylan, F. (2005). Semi-structured interviewing. In A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 65–77). New York: Oxford University Press.

Galanter, C. A., & Patel, V. L. (2005). Medical decision making: A selective review for child psychiatrists and psychologists. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (7), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01452.x .

Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication . New York: New York University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., Willis, K., Green, J., Welch, N., & Daly, J. (2007). What have sampling and data collection got to do with good qualitative research? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31 (6), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1028/bdj.2008.192 .

Glenn, C. R., Weinberg, A., & Klonsky, E. D. (2009). Relationship of the Borderline Symptom List to DSM-IV borderline personality disorder criteria assessed by semi-structured interview. Psychopathology; Basel, 42 (6), 394–398.

Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 146.

Hill, C., Knox, S., Thompson, B., Williams, E., Hess, S., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology . Retrieved from http://epublications.marquette.edu/edu_fac/18

Hutsebaut, J., Kamphuis, J. H., Feenstra, D. J., Weekers, L. C., & De Saeger, H. (2017). Assessing DSM–5-oriented level of personality functioning: Development and psychometric evaluation of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM–5 (STiP-5.1). Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8 (1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000197 .

Kallio, H., Pietilä, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72 (12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031 .

Kaufman, J., Birmaher, B., Brent, D., Rao, U., Flynn, C., Moreci, P., … Ryan, N. (1997). Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): Initial reliability and validity data. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36 (7), 980–988. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199707000-00021 .

Knox, S., & Burkard, A. W. (2014). Qualitative research interviews: An update. In W. Lutz, S. Knox, W. Lutz, & S. Knox (Eds.), Quantitative and qualitative methods in psychotherapy research (pp. 342–354). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kraus, S. E., Hamzah, A., Omar, Z., Suandi, T., Ismail, I. A., & Zahari, M. Z. (2009). Preliminary investigation and interview guide development for studying how Malaysian farmers form their mental models of farming. The Qualitative Report, 14 (2), 245–260.

McTate, E. A., & Leffler, J. M. (2017). Diagnosing disruptive mood dysregulation disorder: Integrating semi-structured and unstructured interviews. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22 (2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104516658190 .

Pierucci-Lagha, A., Gelernter, J., Chan, G., Arias, A., Cubells, J. F., Farrer, L., & Kranzler, H. R. (2007). Reliability of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria using the semi-structured assessment for drug dependence and alcoholism (SSADDA). Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91 (1), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.04.014 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010a). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice . Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Polit, D. S., & Beck, C. T. (2010b). Essentials of nursing research. Appraising evidence for nursing practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.

Ramos-Quiroga, J. A., Nasillo, V., Richarte, V., Corrales, M., Palma, F., Ibáñez, P., … Kooij, J. J. S. (2016). Criteria and concurrent validity of DIVA 2.0: A semi-structured diagnostic interview for adult ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders . https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054716646451 .

Rennie, D. L. (2004). Reflexivity and person-centered counseling. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44 , 182–203.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ryan, A. B. (2006). Post-positivist approaches to research. In Researching and writing your thesis: A guide for postgraduate students (pp. 12–26). Ireland: MACE: Maynooth Adult and Community Education.

Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice researcher. The Qualitative Report, 15 (3), 754–760.

Whiting, L. S. (2008). Semi-structured interviews: Guidance for novice researchers. Nursing Standard, 22 (23), 35–40.

Williams, E. N., & Morrow, S. L. (2009). Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: A pan-paradigmatic perspective. Psychotherapy Research, 19 (4–5), 576–582.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

City University of New York, Lehman College, New York City, NY, USA

Danielle Magaldi

Pace University, New York City, NY, USA

Matthew Berler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle Magaldi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Virgil Zeigler-Hill

Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

Department of Educational Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

Patrizia Velotti

Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Magaldi, D., Berler, M. (2020). Semi-structured Interviews. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_857

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_857

Published : 22 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-24610-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-24612-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Mastering Semi-Structured Interviews

Introduction

What is the difference between structured and semi-structured interviews, when to use a semi-structured interview, best practices for conducting semi-structured interviews, semi-structured interviews in qualitative research.

Interviews are an integral part of qualitative and social science research . While observational research explores what people do, interviews look at what people say and believe. The interview is an important research method to capture people's perspectives and experiences concerning relevant topics.

Three different types of interviews can be utilized in research. In this article, we will look at the semi-structured interview. This form of interview offers a balance between a rigid interaction that produces neatly organized data and a fluid conversation that can explore unexpected but relevant aspects of the phenomenon under study.

Among research methods , interviewing focuses on the experiences and perspectives that people have about a particular topic. In contrast, other research methods such as experiments and observations focus on what people do or how things work. However, people may look at the same cultural or social practice and think different things about it, making interviews important to capture potential nuances in experiences and interpretations.

Conducting an interview is a more complex task than simply talking with people. Qualitative researchers can adopt three different approaches to talking with interview respondents. The most straightforward form of interview is the structured interview , which is a rigid form of interview that asks a specific set of questions. It is fully structured in that all questions are specified beforehand and the interviewer poses the same questions to all participants, without any variations or asking any follow-up questions on the spot. A strength of structured interviews is that asking only predetermined questions produces uniform data that makes comparisons across participants easier, as answers from structured interviews can be quickly sorted into a matrix or spreadsheet for simple comparison.

Another type of interview is the semi-structured interview, which also has predetermined questions but allows for follow-up questions for deeper exploration. In this case, the interview can be seen as a formal conversation, with the researcher having a predetermined set of topics and questions they want to ask, while at the same time remaining open to asking other questions as the conversation unfolds. As a result, a semi-structured interview offers the necessary flexibility for researchers to explore any relevant ideas that may emerge as the participant answers questions and shares new information.

Advantages of semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to probe deeply into the perspectives of interview respondents, while structured interviews have a rigid format that does not allow for the interviewer to elicit more detail if given the opportunity.

The semi-structured format also provides the necessary guidance for researchers to stay focused on the key topics at hand. While the interview may go through the questions in a different order or explore additional topics, the predetermined questions in a semi-structured interview ensures that the important topics are sufficiently explored.

Disadvantages of semi-structured interviews

Unlike in a formal interview, the open-ended nature of semi-structured interviews can allow for the interview respondent to take the conversation in unanticipated directions. While this is a useful feature of semi-structured interviews, it is also important for the interviewer to guide the conversation toward the topic of study to ensure that the collected data will be relevant to the research question.

A semi-structured interview also requires the interviewer to engage in active listening to be able to take advantage of opportunities to ask probing questions. In this respect, interviewers may require training to ensure that they can effectively conduct a semi-structured interview that explores respondents' perspectives deeply enough while collecting data relevant to the research inquiry.

Unstructured interviews

One more distinction to keep in mind is that of the unstructured interview . While structured and semi-structured interviews have predetermined questions tailored to address the research question , unstructured interviews have no framework set before conducting the interview.

These kinds of interviews are meant to be more informal or exploratory in nature; they allow respondents to answer as freely as possible and permits the interviewer to follow the dialogue wherever it goes. While both semi-structured and unstructured interviews can employ spontaneous follow-up questions, semi-structured interviews are designed to ensure that a set of key questions are asked to all respondents to ensure relevant data is collected.

While interviews can follow predetermined structures to different degrees, interviewing as a data collection method is a social act that involves developing rapport with the interview respondent so that they feel comfortable to answer freely. This is also important to collect rich data that shed light on the phenomenon under study.

Keep in mind that any qualitative interview, regardless of type, focuses on open-ended questions. Any study that is more suited to closed-ended questions may find survey research more conducive to addressing their research inquiry.

Organize your interview data with ATLAS.ti

Powerful tools to manage and analyze research projects of all sizes. Start with a free trial today.

A semi-structured interview is ideal when you want to explore individuals' experiences and perspectives around a particular topic. It is also important to have a clearly defined research agenda with specific objectives that your interview respondents can address. Your research objectives can inform the core questions you can pose to respondents.

In addition, if you are still looking to inductively generate theory in areas that have little theoretical coherence or conceptualization, a semi-structured interview is ideal because it allows you to probe further into the ideas that emerge from your respondents. Semi-structured interviews are thus powerful data collection tools when you are looking to build a theory or explore individuals' experiences or perspectives.

Interviewing in qualitative research is not merely an act of conversing with research participants. It is a research method aimed at exploring the perspectives and ideas of research participants as deeply as possible.

When you conduct semi-structured interviews, it is important to intentionally consider every major element of the study, from the selection of participants to the questions asked, even the setting in which the interviews take place.

Preparing for a semi-structured interview

Think about which participants can adequately address the objectives in your study. For example, if your research inquiry deals with a specific cultural practice from a particular perspective, then you will benefit from choosing respondents who can best speak to that perspective.

Also reflect on how you will interact with your respondents. What is the best way to reach them and elicit their ideas? To engage in a meaningful conversation with your participants, it is important to pose questions in a way that is easy for others to understand, avoiding any jargon and preparing alternative ways to ask each question. Moreover, interview questions should be adjusted to each participant. Interviewing children is a different matter from interviewing adults. If the respondents' first language is different from yours, you may also want to consider adjusting your language to make yourself understood. The respondent's individual circumstances will play an important role in how you conduct your interview.

In addition, consider what equipment you will use to collect qualitative data in the form of audio or video recordings , and aim to record in as high a quality as possible. While the audio recorder on most smartphones is adequate enough to capture most conversations, you may want to think about using professional equipment if you are conducting interviews in public environments like cafés or parks. A camera may also be appropriate if you want to record facial expressions, gestures, and other body language for later analysis.

Semi-structured interview questions

A researcher should prepare an interview guide that lists all the necessary questions to be asked and topics to be explored. The guide can be flexible and researchers can ask the questions in whichever order naturally unfolds during the conversation. Nonetheless, having a guide helps ensure that the researcher is collecting data relevant to the research question.

When designing interview guides, consider how your questions are framed and how they might be received by the interview respondent. Avoid leading questions that may elicit socially desirable responses, and prepare alternative ways to word your questions in case participants don't understand a question.

Preparing follow-up questions

Probing questions make for effective follow-ups that encourage respondents to provide in-depth information about the topic at hand. A common challenge of interviews is that participants may provide very brief responses or not deeply engage with the conversation. Preparing prompts and probes can help researchers encourage participants to open up or provide more details if needed.

In general, an interviewer should invite the respondent to elaborate on answers when additional details can benefit the research. Taking advantage of such opportunities in a semi-structured interview can greatly contribute to the theoretical development arising from the interview study. These prompts and probes can be as simple as asking for more details, nodding along, or practicing silence. Another helpful tactic is to ask participants to provide an example or walk you through the story they are sharing.

The interview itself is just one of the components of the interview study. During and after the semi-structured interview, take the following into consideration to ensure rigorous data collection .

Collecting qualitative data in the form of interviews

In most cases, interview data takes the form of transcriptions of raw audio or video recordings of the interview conversations. It's important to ensure that you have the necessary equipment to record and transcribe the interview. Being able to count on high quality recordings is crucial to make transcription easier and more accurate.

While you can certainly analyze the actual recordings, textual data can make the analysis process easier and more manageable. You can use qualitative data analysis software such as ATLAS.ti to analyze multimedia or text data; another benefit of text data is that many additional analysis tools can be used to analyze the structure or contents of the data.

An interview researcher should also consider how the interview is conducted. After all, the two-way communication in a face-to-face interview has different effects on the interview respondent from an interview that is conducted online or by email. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the environment in which you will conduct the interview so that you can anticipate any issues that arise regarding clarity between you and your respondents.

During the course of any interview, it may benefit your analysis to capture detailed notes about the interactions you have with your respondents. A good practice is to note down any observations or impressions immediately after concluding each interview while the interaction is fresh in your mind. Many interviewers use these notes to remind them of potentially significant theoretical developments that can be used when coding the data.

Interviews with vulnerable populations

For interview projects that involve sensitive issues, the researcher should be mindful of how questions are posed and what is asked to avoid interview respondents becoming uncomfortable or anxious.

This is especially true in studies that involve children, people in conflict zones, and other vulnerable populations. The interviewer should take great care to balance data collection with the responsibility of protecting the well-being of their research participants.

Informed consent with interview respondents

In terms of addressing ethical considerations , the researcher should also ensure that they receive participants' consent before collecting any data . Informed consent is a crucial standard in research involving human participants, and it involves both the interviewer and interview respondent being cognizant of the purpose of the study, the procedures taken during the interview, and the measures in place to preserve the respondent's privacy and personal data .

Especially with respect to interviews that collect open-ended data from participants, researchers should ensure that respondents have an in-depth understanding of the interview study in which they are participating.

Preparing semi-structured interviews for analysis

Unlike interviews for news outlets or entertainment programs, the interview research process doesn't end at the conclusion of the conversation with the participant. A research paper is not simply a reporting of what was said in an interview or set of interviews. Instead, the respondents' utterances should be carefully and rigorously analyzed to determine what themes and patterns arise from the data and how these relate to the research question guiding the study.

Transcription of interview recordings is a standard practice for analyzing interviews. You can either manually transcribe interviews, outsource transcription to a professional service, or use software that automates the process. Whatever you choose, make sure that the transcription is accurate and has the level of detail (e.g., thinking sounds, pauses) that you are looking for in your analysis.

Coding and analyzing semi-structured interviews

Qualitative data typically undergoes a coding process in which data segments are labeled with descriptive codes. These codes help to identify patterns in the data. Ultimately, the goal of coding is to help the researcher condense and organize the data to address their research objectives.

For semi-structured interviews, consider first coding every answer based on the questions in the interview guide. This will allow you to compare respondents' answers to the same interview questions when viewing and analyzing each question code later on. You can supplement these codes with interpretive codes based on emerging themes to further explore patterns across participants' experiences or perspectives.

Make the most of your interview research with ATLAS.ti

Easily organize and analyze interview research projects with our intuitive interface. Start with a free trial today.

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Semi-Structured Interviews

What are semi-structured interviews.

Semi-structured interviews are a research method that uses both predetermined questions and open-ended exploration to gain more in-depth insights into participants' perspectives, attitudes, and experiences.

• Transcript loading…

Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in social science research, market research, and other fields where an understanding of people's attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs is important.

Key Characteristics of Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews have several key characteristics that differentiate them from other types of interviews: 

The flexible nature allows researchers to dive deeper into a topic and adapt the interview based on new insights or issues. Unlike structured interviews, which rely on a fixed set of questions and responses, semi-structured interviews allow for more open-ended discussion, which can lead to unexpected insights and perspectives.

Their emphasis is on participant perspectives and experiences. Rather than simply gathering participant data or information, the purpose of semi-structured interviews is to understand how participants think and feel about particular topics or issues. This approach allows researchers to understand better the social and cultural contexts in which participants live and work.

They are often used in research projects that aim to generate new ideas or theories rather than test existing ones. Because they allow for open-ended discussion and exploration, they can effectively generate new insights into complex social phenomena.

Types of Questions for Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews use a combination of predetermined questions and open-ended exploration to learn more about participants' perspectives. There are three main categories of questions you can use:

Open-ended Questions: These are broad, general questions that allow participants to express their thoughts and feelings on a topic without restriction. Open-ended questions typically begin with phrases like "Tell me about..." or "How do you feel about...". These questions help encourage participants to share their experiences and perspectives in their own words.

Closed-ended Questions: Closed-ended questions are more specific and provide the participant with predetermined responses. These questions typically begin with phrases like "Do you agree or disagree with..." or "Which option best describes...". Closed-ended questions can help gather data on specific attitudes or behaviors.

Probing Questions: Probing questions are follow-up questions that aim to clarify or expand upon a participant's response. These questions typically begin with phrases like "Can you tell me more about..." or "Why do you think that is...". Probing questions can help a researcher to understand a participant's thought process or experience.

Steps to Conduct a Successful Semi-Structured Interview

Proper preparation is key to conducting successful semi-structured interviews. Below are some tips for preparing for your interviews:

Define Your Research Questions: Before conducting interviews, it's important to understand your research questions and objectives clearly. This will help you develop a set of initial questions to guide your interview process.

Develop an Interview Guide: An interview guide is a list of questions and prompts designed to elicit information from participants. It should include open-ended and closed-ended questions and probing questions to encourage participants to elaborate on their responses.

Pilot Test Your Interview Guide: It's important to pilot test your interview guide with a small group of participants before conducting full-scale interviews. This will allow you to identify potential issues or areas where the questions must be revised.

Identify and Recruit Participants: Ensure that your sample is representative of the population you are studying. Consider using targeted sampling methods, such as snowball sampling or maximum variation sampling, to recruit participants who can provide diverse perspectives.

Schedule Interviews: Once you've identified and recruited participants, it's time to schedule interviews. Be sure to allow adequate time between interviews for transcription and analysis.

Conduct Interviews: During the interview process, it's important to establish rapport with participants and create a comfortable environment where they feel safe sharing their experiences and opinions. Be sure to follow your interview guide while allowing flexibility in response to unexpected information during the discussion.

Provide Compensation or Incentives to Participants: Consider offering compensation or incentives to participants to encourage their participation. Compensation can come in many forms, such as gift cards, cash, or vouchers. It can also be non-monetary, such as offering participants the opportunity to receive a summary of the study's findings or the chance to participate in future research projects. Compensation or incentives can help to show participants that their time and contributions are valued and appreciated.

Plan your research with this helpful checklist . Then, get ready to conduct semi-structured interviews! Download this template for help in creating different types of interview questions. 

Learn More about Semi Structured Interviews

Take our course on User Research – Methods and Best Practices. 

Read more about the process of conducting semi-structured interviews .

Learn how to analyze the data from your semi-structured interviews .  

Read this reflection on semi-structured interviews as a research instrument .  

Learn how to use the snowball sampling method to recruit participants.

Do you need more diversity in your study? Try maximum variation sampling .

Literature on Semi-Structured Interviews

Here’s the entire UX literature on Semi-Structured Interviews by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Semi-Structured Interviews

Take a deep dive into Semi-Structured Interviews with our course User Research – Methods and Best Practices .

How do you plan to design a product or service that your users will love , if you don't know what they want in the first place? As a user experience designer, you shouldn't leave it to chance to design something outstanding; you should make the effort to understand your users and build on that knowledge from the outset. User research is the way to do this, and it can therefore be thought of as the largest part of user experience design .

In fact, user research is often the first step of a UX design process—after all, you cannot begin to design a product or service without first understanding what your users want! As you gain the skills required, and learn about the best practices in user research, you’ll get first-hand knowledge of your users and be able to design the optimal product—one that’s truly relevant for your users and, subsequently, outperforms your competitors’ .

This course will give you insights into the most essential qualitative research methods around and will teach you how to put them into practice in your design work. You’ll also have the opportunity to embark on three practical projects where you can apply what you’ve learned to carry out user research in the real world . You’ll learn details about how to plan user research projects and fit them into your own work processes in a way that maximizes the impact your research can have on your designs. On top of that, you’ll gain practice with different methods that will help you analyze the results of your research and communicate your findings to your clients and stakeholders—workshops, user journeys and personas, just to name a few!

By the end of the course, you’ll have not only a Course Certificate but also three case studies to add to your portfolio. And remember, a portfolio with engaging case studies is invaluable if you are looking to break into a career in UX design or user research!

We believe you should learn from the best, so we’ve gathered a team of experts to help teach this course alongside our own course instructors. That means you’ll meet a new instructor in each of the lessons on research methods who is an expert in their field—we hope you enjoy what they have in store for you!

All open-source articles on Semi-Structured Interviews

How to do a thematic analysis of user interviews.

• 1.2k shares
• 3 years ago

Pros and Cons of Conducting User Interviews

How to Moderate User Interviews

• 4 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

ID 2050 - SOC SCI RES-IQP: Worc Tech Teacher Prep: Semi-Structured Interviews and Qualitative Research

• Research Resources
• Citation Guidance for Education: MLA & APA Style
• Educational Policies
• Semi-Structured Interviews and Qualitative Research

Semi-structured Interviews (Assignment #4)

What is qualitative research?

• Semi-structured Interview Resources
• Assignment Articles (PDFs for Download)

From The sage handbook of qualitative data collection (Flick, 2018):

"We can identify some common features of qualitative research despite the multiplicity of approaches to qualitative research. First of all, qualitative research is approaching the world(s) ‘out there’ (instead of doing studies in specialized research settings such as laboratories). It intends to understand, describe, and sometimes explain social phenomena ‘from the inside’ in a number of different ways: First , experiences of individuals or groups are analyzed. Experiences can be related to biographical life histories or to (everyday or professional) practices; they may be addressed by analyzing everyday knowledge, accounts, and stories. Second , interactions and communications are analyzed in the making. This can be based on observing or recording practices of interacting and communicating and analyzing this material. Third , documents (texts, images, film, or sounds, and more and more digital documents) or similar traces of experiences or interactions are analyzed."

What are the objects or priorities of qualitive research? "Qualitative researchers take context and cases seriously for understanding an issue under study. A bigger part of the current qualitative research is based on case studies or a series of case studies, and often the case (its history and complexity) is an important context for understanding the issue that is studied. A major part of qualitative research is based on text and writing – from field notes and transcripts to descriptions and interpretations and finally to the presentation of the findings and of the research as a whole."

From Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011):

"Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (3)".

Aims of Qualitative Data Collection (Flick, 2018):

"The major aim of collecting qualitative data is to provide materials for an empirical analysis of a phenomenon that a study is about. This has less to do with finding phenomena in the field than with deciding to turn phenomena into something that we can analyze. This ‘turning’ is based on a number of decisions taken by the researchers", including a researcher's method (like surveys, interviews, of other embedded forms of  observation).

On interviewing (From Sage):

"In terms of organization, interviews range from the tightly structured format of standardized survey interviews in which questions are asked in a specific order using the same format, to semi-structured interviews, in which the organization of topics is less tightly formatted. In the semi-structured interview, the same topics form the basis for questioning, yet interviewers’ sequencing of questions is participant-led. At the other end of the spectrum from standardized or structured interviews are unstructured interviews, in which interviews are loosely formatted. Topics are participant-driven, and since the interviewer might not have a pre-formatted interview guide prior to the interview, talk is more likely to resemble everyday conversation."

"In semi-structured interviews, follow-up questions – also referred to as probes – are formulated relative to what interviewees have already said. Researchers sequence questions to generate free-ranging conversations about research topics that are directed by what participants have to say".

On the practice of interviewing--Asking questions:

"[The] literature on qualitative interviewing has proliferated lengthy lists of recommendations for both what to do and what not to do...our recommendation is that interviewers come to interviews well-prepared with respect to the topic of the interview, with a good sense of what they hope to learn from the questions they anticipate asking, and with a willingness to listen carefully and learn from participants (Jacob and Furgerson, 2012; Roulston et al., 2003).

Both novice and more experienced interviewers who talk more than they listen are likely to generate the kinds of data that they seek to find through asking leading questions and contributing their own viewpoints. These sorts of interviews jeopardize the scientific process, since they potentially provide more information about interviewers than interviewees, and inhibit participants from openly expressing their own views.

Formulating an Interview Guide (A loose script w/ themes and sequence):

"Researchers consider the topics of talk about which questions might be asked, how to sequence the questions – usually beginning with broader questions before moving to more specific questions, and formulating open, rather than closed questions. For example, if one were to examine the research topic of online learning, a broad open question asked at the beginning of the interview might be:

• Tell me about your experiences with online delivery of course work prior to taking this course.

Potential follow-up topics might be suggested in the interview guide should participants not mention those. For example, a follow-up topic related to the question above might focus on tools used".

What makes an interview good?

"From a researcher's perspective, ‘good’ interviewing practice is commonly seen to involve:

• appropriate preparation.
• demonstration of respect for interviewees.
• intensive listening by the interviewer.
• development of thoughtful interview guides.
• interview guides that include fewer questions.
• formulation of short, open-ended questions,
• flexibility on the part of the interviewer to deviate from prior plans when necessary,
• effective use of follow-up questions to elicit extended descriptions.
• ability to help participants tell their stories.

https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-data-collection/i1709.xml#section17 (Please review Figure 15.1 

Flick, U. (2018). The sage handbook of qualitative data collection. SAGE Publications Ltd, https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070

• Strategies for Qualitative Interviews (Harvard_Sociology)
• Conducting semi-structured interviews (Practical Program Evaluation 2015)
• Teacher attitudes regarding barriers

Strategies for Qualitative/ Semi-Structured Interviews

A Few General Points:

• Stop and Think: should interviews be included in your research design?
• Are there alternative ways of answering your research question through documentary review, observation or unobtrusive measures?
• Be clear about the possible biases and limitations of interviews
• The point of a qualitative interview is to let the respondent tell their own story on their own terms.
• THIS IS NOT A SURVEY!  The guide acts as a prompt, reminding you of necessary topics to cover, questions to ask and areas to probe.  As such, it should be simple so that your primary focus can stay on the respondent.  It’s best to memorize your guide!
• How much time will you spend with each respondent?  Adjust your guide accordingly (it may take several interviews to judge the correct length). 
• Try out a new guide (or parts of it) on friends and get their feedback before using it in the field.

A Successful Interviewer is...

1. Knowledgeable: is thoroughly familiar with the focus of the interview; pilot interviews of the kind used in survey interviewing can be useful here.

2. Structuring: gives purpose for interview; rounds it off; asks whether interviewee has questions.

3. Clear: asks simple, easy, short questions; no jargon.

4. Gentle: lets people finish; gives them time to think; tolerates pauses.

5. Sensitive: listens attentively to what is said and how it is said; is empathetic in dealing with the interviewee. 6. Open: responds to what is important to interviewee and is flexible.

7. Steering: knows what he/she wants to find out.

8. Critical: is prepared to challenge what is said, for example, dealing with inconsistencies in interviewees’ replies.

9. Remembering: relates what is said to what has previously been said.

10. Interpreting: clarifies and extends meanings of interviewees’ statements, but without imposing meaning on them.

11. Balanced: does not talk too much, which may make the interviewee passive, and does not talk too little, which may result in the interviewee feeling he or she is not talking along the right lines.

12. Ethically sensitive: is sensitive to the ethical dimension of interviewing, ensuring the interviewee appreciates what the research is about, its purposes, and that his or her answers will be treated confidentially.

Guidelines for Developing Interview Questions 

• Questions should be simple.  Do not ask more than one question at a time.
• The best questions are those which elicit the longest answers from the respondent.  Do not ask questions that can be answered with one word. Don’t ask questions that require your respondents to do your analysis for you.  This is YOUR job. 
• Likewise, do not ask for hearsay or opinions on behalf of the group they are a part of “What do people around here think of x?”  You rarely get anything interesting.
• Don’t be afraid to ask embarrassing questions.  If you don’t ask, they won’t tell.  
• Direct questions: ‘Do you find it easy to keep smiling when serving customers?’; ‘Are you happy with the way you and your husband decide how money should be spent?’ Such questions are perhaps best left until towards the end of the interview, in order not to influence the direction of the interview too much. o Indirect questions: ‘What do most people round here think of the ways that management treats its staff?’, perhaps followed up by ‘Is that the way you feel too?’, in order to get at the individual’s own view. 
• Structuring questions: ‘I would now like to move on to a different topic’.
• Follow-up questions: getting the interviewee to elaborate his/her answer, such as ‘Could you say some more about that?’; ‘What do you mean by that . . .?’
• Probing questions: following up what has been said through direct questioning.
• Specifying questions: ‘What did you do then?’; ‘How did X react to what you said?’
• Interpreting questions: ‘Do you mean that your leadership role has had to change from one of encouraging others to a more directive one?’; ‘Is it fair to say that what you are suggesting is that you don’t mind being friendly towards customers most of the time, but when they are unpleasant or demanding you find it more difficult?’ 

Step-By-Step Guide to Writing Interview Questions 

1. Write down the larger research questions of the study.  Outline the broad areas of knowledge that are relevant to answering these questions.  

2. Develop questions within each of these major areas, shaping them to fit particular kinds of respondents.  The goal here is to tap into their experiences and expertise.  

3. Adjust the language of the interview according to the respondent (child, professional, etc.).

4. Take care to word questions so that respondents are motivated to answer as completely and honestly as possible.

5. Ask “how” questions rather than “why” questions to get stories of process rather than acceptable “accounts” of behavior.  “How did you come to join this group . . .?”

6. Develop probes that will elicit more detailed and elaborate responses to key questions.  The more detail, the better!

7. Begin the interview with a “warm-up” question—something that the respondent can answer easily and at some length (though not too long).  It doesn’t have to pertain directly to what you are trying to find out (although it might), but this initial rapport-building will put you more at ease with one another and thus will make the rest of the interview flow more smoothly.

8. Think about the logical flow of the interview.  What topics should come first?  What follows more or less “naturally”?  This may take some adjustment after several interviews.  

9. Difficult or potentially embarrassing questions should be asked toward the end of the interview, when rapport has been established.

10. The last question should provide some closure for the interview, and leave the respondent feeling empowered, listened to, or otherwise glad that they talked to you.

• Two decades Erased (NYT)
• Are we at crisis (Brookings)
• << Previous: Educational Policies
• Last Updated: Jan 29, 2024 6:11 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wpi.edu/teacherprep

How can we help?

• [email protected]
• Consultation
• 508-831-5410

24 Apr 2024

Semi-structured interviews

Explore the versatility of semi-structured interviews. learn how to conduct, analyze, and leverage insights for impactful user research..

Alexander Boswell

Semi-structured interviews are the bread and butter of qualitative research . Why?

One of their main advantages is that they’re "the best of both worlds" – you get some of the organization of structured interviews while also allowing the flexibility to ask open-ended questions based on the participant’s responses.

In user research, the flexibility of semi-structured interviews means this method has many use cases, from generating exploratory insights to helping validate design ideas.

This guide will help you gain a deeper understanding of semi-structured interviews as a user research method and how to conduct them. We'll be covering:

What is a semi-structured interview for user research?

Advantages and disadvantages of semi-structured interviews, semi-structured interview question examples, how to conduct a semi-structured interview.

Analyzing results from a semi-structured interview study

Presenting semi-structured interview findings

By the end of this article, you should feel confident (and itching!) to start building a semi-structured interview research study.

A semi-structured interview is a data collection method that uses a general set of questions about your research topic as a guide to help direct a user interview , but isn't limited by those questions.

Unlike structured interviews , where you phrase and place questions in the same order for every interview, semi-structured interviews typically use open-ended questions that don't necessarily have to be in the same order. However, since there’s still a list of predetermined questions to guide you, it's not as flexible and exploratory as unstructured interviews.

Elevate your research practice

Join over 320,000+ marketers, designers, researchers, and product leaders who use Lyssna to make data-driven decisions.

Sign up for free

When should you use semi-structured interviews?

While structured interviews are pretty easy for most people to handle, semi-structured interviews require a little more interviewing experience. That's because it can be more challenging to improvise appropriate questions on the fly that aren't leading or that don’t introduce bias . 

Another aspect to consider is that semi-structured interviews are more exploratory , given the wide range of potential responses from open-ended questions.

As a result, you should think about conducting semi-structured interviews after initial concept designs but still before building a minimum viable product (MVP).

Semi-structured interviews are also a great tool in a continuous product discovery cycle to help gain new perspectives on an existing product.

Before we discuss some of the practical details of conducting semi-structured interviews, let's consider their pros and cons. While this method is widely used, it might not be the best choice depending on your research question and objective.

Advantages of semi-structured interviews

"The best of both worlds": Regarding the differences between structured, semi-structured, and unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews sit in the middle. They combine elements of the other two approaches, providing an outline with the freedom to color outside the lines a little.

Allows for guided yet free-flowing conversation: For interviewers with some experience, a semi-structured interview provides the flexibility to ask clarifying questions and probe deeper into responses but still has a safety net of questions to go back to if the conversation strays too far.

Get more detailed, rich responses: A semi-structured interview is much more likely to garner detailed responses than a structured one. This is because open-ended questions are less structured. Also, you can build a better connection with participants and ask follow-up questions based on the answers.

Disadvantages of semi-structured interviews

It can reduce validity: If you stray from the original set of planned questions, your study may be less valid. This is because the conversation will move away from the research questions. It will also be hard to compare data between participants.

Increases the risk of bias: Since at least some of the questions will be partially improvised, you can unintentionally introduce bias into the new questions or ask leading questions, invalidating the responses.

They can be more difficult to plan: Since you can expect some level of improvisation based on unique participant responses, you'll have to keep in mind that you're unlikely to be able to pre-code responses (as you might with a structured interview), which can also make analysis slightly more time-consuming.

Since you're not necessarily looking for demographic or quantifiable data in a semi-structured interview, you'll likely be using open-ended questions, which can be deceptively tricky to get right.

You'll need to word your user interview questions in a way that don’t bias your participants' responses. Some quick tips include making your questions concise, without industry jargon, and thinking about the themes involved in your research question to keep them all on topic.

For example, let’s say your UX research question is, "How do we reduce our website bounce rates?", relating to an objective of improving the website visitor experience. Some example open-ended questions to use in the interview could be:

What prompted you to visit our website for the first time?

Have you ever felt frustrated while browsing a website? If so, can you identify what made you feel that way?

Can you tell me about a time when you decided to leave a website and go to a different one when looking for X information?

These are just a few examples for this scenario, but other open-ended questions you can use include:

What is your first impression of this website? (showing a design concept)

What do you think X product/service does?

Do you think X product/service is similar to another? If so, please explain.

Would X product/service help you complete tasks in your everyday life?

What motivated you to purchase X type of product? Or: What stopped you from making X purchase?

Our top tip for semi-structured interview questions is to start easy – give your participants a chance to warm up before moving on to more complex questions.

As with most interview-based research methods, there are three phases to contend with: the pre-interview phase, the interview phase, and the post-interview phase. Each phase is essential for running a successful study.

Pre-interview phase

Unfortunately, one can't simply rock up and interview random participants on the spot. There's a bit of planning involved.

Before the interviews start, you'll need to set everything up appropriately – documenting your research question and objectives, writing up your interview questions, and gathering the right participants.

Ideally, you can recruit participants from your network of existing users. But if that's not possible, you can always use a research panel to find people who match your ideal customer profile (ICP). You'll also need to create a research consent form for participants to acknowledge and sign.

You'll also need to think about where and how you'll conduct your interviews. Many people are more comfortable with remote video calls (thanks to a particular pandemic), which are also helpful if you plan to conduct a lot of interviews. Otherwise, you'll need to organize a mutually beneficial time and place for your participants.

Use our handy discussion guide template to plan your research and document your questions for user interviews.

Interview phase

Once you’ve prepared your research discussion guide and have recruited your participants and organized your interviews , you can start interviewing.

During each interview, you'll want to follow these steps:

Confirm that your participants consent to taking part in your research and agree to be recorded. You should already have written consent, but it's best practice to confirm this at the start of the interview.

It's also best practice to set expectations for the interview, letting participants know about the format and confirming how long the interview will be, giving them a chance to exit the research if they want/need to.

Start the interview with a planned (easy) question to warm up the participant and build rapport.

As the questions proceed, remember to ask clarifying questions and probe deeper into participant responses. However, try to stay on topic and return to your planned questions if the conversation is drifting away.

End the interview – while it's not a "best practice" per se, it's nice for the participant to end with a final easy question and allow them to ask any of their own.

Read our article on how to navigate off-topic conversations during user interviews.

Post-interview phase

Once you've completed all the interviews, you'll need to focus on analyzing and synthesizing your data . However, before you do that, remember to check for any follow-up questions you might have received from your participants and answer those first.

If there aren't any, you can move straight on to your interview transcripts. If you conduct remote interviews, software like Lyssna can automatically transcribe them with great accuracy – otherwise, build time into your post-interview phase for transcription.

With your transcripts in hand, you can start analyzing the data and gathering insights ready to build a research report for your key stakeholders.

Analyzing semi-structured interviews

Unlike structured interviews, you won't have much (if any) statistical data to analyze – instead, you'll have to turn to qualitative methods of analysis.

The most common method of analysis is thematic analysis, which involves coding the data and using those codes to determine its themes. In other scenarios, a content analysis might be appropriate (for example, if you're using data you've pulled from feedback surveys or reviews).

But first, you'll need to decide if you're taking an inductive or a deductive approach. An inductive approach means you'll let the data guide and determine your themes, whereas a deductive approach helps you investigate whether the data confirms predetermined themes.

If you're taking a deductive approach, you'll need to be mindful of bias as you code your data so as to not fall into a confirmation bias trap.

Qualitative data coding

To analyze your transcripts using thematic analysis, you'll need to examine the text closely to find common topics, patterns, and perhaps even phrasing.

From my experience in qualitative coding during my Master's and PhD research, you'll want to do at least two coding rounds (preferably three), as some codes you add in later data might be relevant to earlier content.

From there, you'll gather your data and group it by code to give you a broad overview of the data in each code. Then, you'll be able to organize the codes into themes (grouping codes together based on their similarity, e.g. shared sentiment or experiences).

Before you call it a day on your themes, you should return to the initial data and double-check that the theme still applies.

Here's an example of what this coding can look like, taken from A Narrative Approach to Qualitative Inquiry by Michelle Butina in the Clinical Laboratory Science journal.

It's worth noting that this method of analysis is quite subjective and can reduce the study's validity. However, you can help combat this validity reduction by having another researcher check your codes and see if they'd use different names or new codes.

After analyzing your data and gathering your findings, it's time to package it up for presentation. In most cases, you'll build a research report (in other cases, you'll likely use a presentation format).

Regardless of the format you decide to present your research, it will nearly always follow this pattern:

Present the research question and objectives. This helps stakeholders know what the research was trying to achieve.

Methodology . Explain how you approached the research question to help stakeholders understand how you got to your findings.

Results/Findings. Show your findings and describe the themes that emerged from the research. If you were taking a deductive approach, show how the data confirmed (or didn't confirm) your predetermined themes.z

Discussion/Recommendations. Do your findings help answer the research question and achieve its objectives? If not, why? Based on the findings, what are your recommendations moving forward?

You'll likely get questions from your stakeholders about the research, but don't worry – by this point, you've been immersed in it, and you'll know it like the back of your hand.

Your go-to user research platform

The best teams use Lyssna so they can deeply understand their audience and move in the right direction — faster.

Get started with user interview research today

Conducting semi-structured user interviews is an excellent method of gaining deep insights into your users' attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. However, even well-designed studies can fall flat if you lack the right tools.

With Interviews from Lyssna , you can quickly recruit the right research participants from a panel of over 530,000 quality participants, screen them, sync multiple calendars, and transcribe your interview sessions.

Using the tips we've discussed in this guide alongside Lyssna can help you streamline your UX research process and get the data you want ready for your next phase of product development.

You may also like these articles

Structured interviews

Learn when and how to use structured interviews for user research, with example questions and practical tips for analyzing data effectively.

How to start a startup

Explore actionable insights and tactics from Paul Cheek's expertise in guiding startups through user testing.

Analyzing and synthesizing UX research

Learn how to effectively analyze and synthesize qualitative data using thematic analysis and affinity mapping for deeper UX insights.

Try for free today

No credit card required

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: 05 October 2018

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age

• P. Gill 1 &
• J. Baillie 2  

British Dental Journal volume  225 ,  pages 668–672 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

48 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

Highlights that qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry. Interviews and focus groups remain the most common qualitative methods of data collection.

Suggests the advent of digital technologies has transformed how qualitative research can now be undertaken.

Suggests interviews and focus groups can offer significant, meaningful insight into participants' experiences, beliefs and perspectives, which can help to inform developments in dental practice.

Qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry, due to its potential to provide meaningful, in-depth insights into participants' experiences, perspectives, beliefs and behaviours. These insights can subsequently help to inform developments in dental practice and further related research. The most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research are interviews and focus groups. While these are primarily conducted face-to-face, the ongoing evolution of digital technologies, such as video chat and online forums, has further transformed these methods of data collection. This paper therefore discusses interviews and focus groups in detail, outlines how they can be used in practice, how digital technologies can further inform the data collection process, and what these methods can offer dentistry.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Interviews in the social sciences

Professionalism in dentistry: deconstructing common terminology

A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research, introduction.

Traditionally, research in dentistry has primarily been quantitative in nature. 1 However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in qualitative research within the profession, due to its potential to further inform developments in practice, policy, education and training. Consequently, in 2008, the British Dental Journal (BDJ) published a four paper qualitative research series, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 to help increase awareness and understanding of this particular methodological approach.

Since the papers were originally published, two scoping reviews have demonstrated the ongoing proliferation in the use of qualitative research within the field of oral healthcare. 1 , 6 To date, the original four paper series continue to be well cited and two of the main papers remain widely accessed among the BDJ readership. 2 , 3 The potential value of well-conducted qualitative research to evidence-based practice is now also widely recognised by service providers, policy makers, funding bodies and those who commission, support and use healthcare research.

Besides increasing standalone use, qualitative methods are now also routinely incorporated into larger mixed method study designs, such as clinical trials, as they can offer additional, meaningful insights into complex problems that simply could not be provided by quantitative methods alone. Qualitative methods can also be used to further facilitate in-depth understanding of important aspects of clinical trial processes, such as recruitment. For example, Ellis et al . investigated why edentulous older patients, dissatisfied with conventional dentures, decline implant treatment, despite its established efficacy, and frequently refuse to participate in related randomised clinical trials, even when financial constraints are removed. 7 Through the use of focus groups in Canada and the UK, the authors found that fears of pain and potential complications, along with perceived embarrassment, exacerbated by age, are common reasons why older patients typically refuse dental implants. 7

The last decade has also seen further developments in qualitative research, due to the ongoing evolution of digital technologies. These developments have transformed how researchers can access and share information, communicate and collaborate, recruit and engage participants, collect and analyse data and disseminate and translate research findings. 8 Where appropriate, such technologies are therefore capable of extending and enhancing how qualitative research is undertaken. 9 For example, it is now possible to collect qualitative data via instant messaging, email or online/video chat, using appropriate online platforms.

These innovative approaches to research are therefore cost-effective, convenient, reduce geographical constraints and are often useful for accessing 'hard to reach' participants (for example, those who are immobile or socially isolated). 8 , 9 However, digital technologies are still relatively new and constantly evolving and therefore present a variety of pragmatic and methodological challenges. Furthermore, given their very nature, their use in many qualitative studies and/or with certain participant groups may be inappropriate and should therefore always be carefully considered. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed explication regarding the use of digital technologies in qualitative research, insight is provided into how such technologies can be used to facilitate the data collection process in interviews and focus groups.

In light of such developments, it is perhaps therefore timely to update the main paper 3 of the original BDJ series. As with the previous publications, this paper has been purposely written in an accessible style, to enhance readability, particularly for those who are new to qualitative research. While the focus remains on the most common qualitative methods of data collection – interviews and focus groups – appropriate revisions have been made to provide a novel perspective, and should therefore be helpful to those who would like to know more about qualitative research. This paper specifically focuses on undertaking qualitative research with adult participants only.

Overview of qualitative research

Qualitative research is an approach that focuses on people and their experiences, behaviours and opinions. 10 , 11 The qualitative researcher seeks to answer questions of 'how' and 'why', providing detailed insight and understanding, 11 which quantitative methods cannot reach. 12 Within qualitative research, there are distinct methodologies influencing how the researcher approaches the research question, data collection and data analysis. 13 For example, phenomenological studies focus on the lived experience of individuals, explored through their description of the phenomenon. Ethnographic studies explore the culture of a group and typically involve the use of multiple methods to uncover the issues. 14

While methodology is the 'thinking tool', the methods are the 'doing tools'; 13 the ways in which data are collected and analysed. There are multiple qualitative data collection methods, including interviews, focus groups, observations, documentary analysis, participant diaries, photography and videography. Two of the most commonly used qualitative methods are interviews and focus groups, which are explored in this article. The data generated through these methods can be analysed in one of many ways, according to the methodological approach chosen. A common approach is thematic data analysis, involving the identification of themes and subthemes across the data set. Further information on approaches to qualitative data analysis has been discussed elsewhere. 1

Qualitative research is an evolving and adaptable approach, used by different disciplines for different purposes. Traditionally, qualitative data, specifically interviews, focus groups and observations, have been collected face-to-face with participants. In more recent years, digital technologies have contributed to the ongoing evolution of qualitative research. Digital technologies offer researchers different ways of recruiting participants and collecting data, and offer participants opportunities to be involved in research that is not necessarily face-to-face.

Research interviews are a fundamental qualitative research method 15 and are utilised across methodological approaches. Interviews enable the researcher to learn in depth about the perspectives, experiences, beliefs and motivations of the participant. 3 , 16 Examples include, exploring patients' perspectives of fear/anxiety triggers in dental treatment, 17 patients' experiences of oral health and diabetes, 18 and dental students' motivations for their choice of career. 19

Interviews may be structured, semi-structured or unstructured, 3 according to the purpose of the study, with less structured interviews facilitating a more in depth and flexible interviewing approach. 20 Structured interviews are similar to verbal questionnaires and are used if the researcher requires clarification on a topic; however they produce less in-depth data about a participant's experience. 3 Unstructured interviews may be used when little is known about a topic and involves the researcher asking an opening question; 3 the participant then leads the discussion. 20 Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in healthcare research, enabling the researcher to ask predetermined questions, 20 while ensuring the participant discusses issues they feel are important.

Interviews can be undertaken face-to-face or using digital methods when the researcher and participant are in different locations. Audio-recording the interview, with the consent of the participant, is essential for all interviews regardless of the medium as it enables accurate transcription; the process of turning the audio file into a word-for-word transcript. This transcript is the data, which the researcher then analyses according to the chosen approach.

Types of interview

Qualitative studies often utilise one-to-one, face-to-face interviews with research participants. This involves arranging a mutually convenient time and place to meet the participant, signing a consent form and audio-recording the interview. However, digital technologies have expanded the potential for interviews in research, enabling individuals to participate in qualitative research regardless of location.

Telephone interviews can be a useful alternative to face-to-face interviews and are commonly used in qualitative research. They enable participants from different geographical areas to participate and may be less onerous for participants than meeting a researcher in person. 15 A qualitative study explored patients' perspectives of dental implants and utilised telephone interviews due to the quality of the data that could be yielded. 21 The researcher needs to consider how they will audio record the interview, which can be facilitated by purchasing a recorder that connects directly to the telephone. One potential disadvantage of telephone interviews is the inability of the interviewer and researcher to see each other. This is resolved using software for audio and video calls online – such as Skype – to conduct interviews with participants in qualitative studies. Advantages of this approach include being able to see the participant if video calls are used, enabling observation of non-verbal communication, and the software can be free to use. However, participants are required to have a device and internet connection, as well as being computer literate, potentially limiting who can participate in the study. One qualitative study explored the role of dental hygienists in reducing oral health disparities in Canada. 22 The researcher conducted interviews using Skype, which enabled dental hygienists from across Canada to be interviewed within the research budget, accommodating the participants' schedules. 22

A less commonly used approach to qualitative interviews is the use of social virtual worlds. A qualitative study accessed a social virtual world – Second Life – to explore the health literacy skills of individuals who use social virtual worlds to access health information. 23 The researcher created an avatar and interview room, and undertook interviews with participants using voice and text methods. 23 This approach to recruitment and data collection enables individuals from diverse geographical locations to participate, while remaining anonymous if they wish. Furthermore, for interviews conducted using text methods, transcription of the interview is not required as the researcher can save the written conversation with the participant, with the participant's consent. However, the researcher and participant need to be familiar with how the social virtual world works to engage in an interview this way.

Conducting an interview

Ensuring informed consent before any interview is a fundamental aspect of the research process. Participants in research must be afforded autonomy and respect; consent should be informed and voluntary. 24 Individuals should have the opportunity to read an information sheet about the study, ask questions, understand how their data will be stored and used, and know that they are free to withdraw at any point without reprisal. The qualitative researcher should take written consent before undertaking the interview. In a face-to-face interview, this is straightforward: the researcher and participant both sign copies of the consent form, keeping one each. However, this approach is less straightforward when the researcher and participant do not meet in person. A recent protocol paper outlined an approach for taking consent for telephone interviews, which involved: audio recording the participant agreeing to each point on the consent form; the researcher signing the consent form and keeping a copy; and posting a copy to the participant. 25 This process could be replicated in other interview studies using digital methods.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using face-to-face and digital methods for research interviews. Ultimately, for both approaches, the quality of the interview is determined by the researcher. 16 Appropriate training and preparation are thus required. Healthcare professionals can use their interpersonal communication skills when undertaking a research interview, particularly questioning, listening and conversing. 3 However, the purpose of an interview is to gain information about the study topic, 26 rather than offering help and advice. 3 The researcher therefore needs to listen attentively to participants, enabling them to describe their experience without interruption. 3 The use of active listening skills also help to facilitate the interview. 14 Spradley outlined elements and strategies for research interviews, 27 which are a useful guide for qualitative researchers:

Greeting and explaining the project/interview

Asking descriptive (broad), structural (explore response to descriptive) and contrast (difference between) questions

Asymmetry between the researcher and participant talking

Expressing interest and cultural ignorance

Repeating, restating and incorporating the participant's words when asking questions

Creating hypothetical situations

Asking friendly questions

Knowing when to leave.

For semi-structured interviews, a topic guide (also called an interview schedule) is used to guide the content of the interview – an example of a topic guide is outlined in Box 1 . The topic guide, usually based on the research questions, existing literature and, for healthcare professionals, their clinical experience, is developed by the research team. The topic guide should include open ended questions that elicit in-depth information, and offer participants the opportunity to talk about issues important to them. This is vital in qualitative research where the researcher is interested in exploring the experiences and perspectives of participants. It can be useful for qualitative researchers to pilot the topic guide with the first participants, 10 to ensure the questions are relevant and understandable, and amending the questions if required.

Regardless of the medium of interview, the researcher must consider the setting of the interview. For face-to-face interviews, this could be in the participant's home, in an office or another mutually convenient location. A quiet location is preferable to promote confidentiality, enable the researcher and participant to concentrate on the conversation, and to facilitate accurate audio-recording of the interview. For interviews using digital methods the same principles apply: a quiet, private space where the researcher and participant feel comfortable and confident to participate in an interview.

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

Study focus: Parents' experiences of brushing their child's (aged 0–5) teeth

1. Can you tell me about your experience of cleaning your child's teeth?

How old was your child when you started cleaning their teeth?

Why did you start cleaning their teeth at that point?

How often do you brush their teeth?

What do you use to brush their teeth and why?

2. Could you explain how you find cleaning your child's teeth?

Do you find anything difficult?

What makes cleaning their teeth easier for you?

3. How has your experience of cleaning your child's teeth changed over time?

Has it become easier or harder?

Have you changed how often and how you clean their teeth? If so, why?

4. Could you describe how your child finds having their teeth cleaned?

What do they enjoy about having their teeth cleaned?

Is there anything they find upsetting about having their teeth cleaned?

5. Where do you look for information/advice about cleaning your child's teeth?

What did your health visitor tell you about cleaning your child's teeth? (If anything)

What has the dentist told you about caring for your child's teeth? (If visited)

Have any family members given you advice about how to clean your child's teeth? If so, what did they tell you? Did you follow their advice?

6. Is there anything else you would like to discuss about this?

Focus groups

A focus group is a moderated group discussion on a pre-defined topic, for research purposes. 28 , 29 While not aligned to a particular qualitative methodology (for example, grounded theory or phenomenology) as such, focus groups are used increasingly in healthcare research, as they are useful for exploring collective perspectives, attitudes, behaviours and experiences. Consequently, they can yield rich, in-depth data and illuminate agreement and inconsistencies 28 within and, where appropriate, between groups. Examples include public perceptions of dental implants and subsequent impact on help-seeking and decision making, 30 and general dental practitioners' views on patient safety in dentistry. 31

Focus groups can be used alone or in conjunction with other methods, such as interviews or observations, and can therefore help to confirm, extend or enrich understanding and provide alternative insights. 28 The social interaction between participants often results in lively discussion and can therefore facilitate the collection of rich, meaningful data. However, they are complex to organise and manage, due to the number of participants, and may also be inappropriate for exploring particularly sensitive issues that many participants may feel uncomfortable about discussing in a group environment.

Focus groups are primarily undertaken face-to-face but can now also be undertaken online, using appropriate technologies such as email, bulletin boards, online research communities, chat rooms, discussion forums, social media and video conferencing. 32 Using such technologies, data collection can also be synchronous (for example, online discussions in 'real time') or, unlike traditional face-to-face focus groups, asynchronous (for example, online/email discussions in 'non-real time'). While many of the fundamental principles of focus group research are the same, regardless of how they are conducted, a number of subtle nuances are associated with the online medium. 32 Some of which are discussed further in the following sections.

Focus group considerations

Some key considerations associated with face-to-face focus groups are: how many participants are required; should participants within each group know each other (or not) and how many focus groups are needed within a single study? These issues are much debated and there is no definitive answer. However, the number of focus groups required will largely depend on the topic area, the depth and breadth of data needed, the desired level of participation required 29 and the necessity (or not) for data saturation.

The optimum group size is around six to eight participants (excluding researchers) but can work effectively with between three and 14 participants. 3 If the group is too small, it may limit discussion, but if it is too large, it may become disorganised and difficult to manage. It is, however, prudent to over-recruit for a focus group by approximately two to three participants, to allow for potential non-attenders. For many researchers, particularly novice researchers, group size may also be informed by pragmatic considerations, such as the type of study, resources available and moderator experience. 28 Similar size and mix considerations exist for online focus groups. Typically, synchronous online focus groups will have around three to eight participants but, as the discussion does not happen simultaneously, asynchronous groups may have as many as 10–30 participants. 33

The topic area and potential group interaction should guide group composition considerations. Pre-existing groups, where participants know each other (for example, work colleagues) may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and may enjoy a familiarity, which facilitates discussion and/or the ability to challenge each other courteously. 3 However, if there is a potential power imbalance within the group or if existing group norms and hierarchies may adversely affect the ability of participants to speak freely, then 'stranger groups' (that is, where participants do not already know each other) may be more appropriate. 34 , 35

Focus group management

Face-to-face focus groups should normally be conducted by two researchers; a moderator and an observer. 28 The moderator facilitates group discussion, while the observer typically monitors group dynamics, behaviours, non-verbal cues, seating arrangements and speaking order, which is essential for transcription and analysis. The same principles of informed consent, as discussed in the interview section, also apply to focus groups, regardless of medium. However, the consent process for online discussions will probably be managed somewhat differently. For example, while an appropriate participant information leaflet (and consent form) would still be required, the process is likely to be managed electronically (for example, via email) and would need to specifically address issues relating to technology (for example, anonymity and use, storage and access to online data). 32

The venue in which a face to face focus group is conducted should be of a suitable size, private, quiet, free from distractions and in a collectively convenient location. It should also be conducted at a time appropriate for participants, 28 as this is likely to promote attendance. As with interviews, the same ethical considerations apply (as discussed earlier). However, online focus groups may present additional ethical challenges associated with issues such as informed consent, appropriate access and secure data storage. Further guidance can be found elsewhere. 8 , 32

Before the focus group commences, the researchers should establish rapport with participants, as this will help to put them at ease and result in a more meaningful discussion. Consequently, researchers should introduce themselves, provide further clarity about the study and how the process will work in practice and outline the 'ground rules'. Ground rules are designed to assist, not hinder, group discussion and typically include: 3 , 28 , 29

Discussions within the group are confidential to the group

Only one person can speak at a time

All participants should have sufficient opportunity to contribute

There should be no unnecessary interruptions while someone is speaking

Everyone can be expected to be listened to and their views respected

Challenging contrary opinions is appropriate, but ridiculing is not.

Moderating a focus group requires considered management and good interpersonal skills to help guide the discussion and, where appropriate, keep it sufficiently focused. Avoid, therefore, participating, leading, expressing personal opinions or correcting participants' knowledge 3 , 28 as this may bias the process. A relaxed, interested demeanour will also help participants to feel comfortable and promote candid discourse. Moderators should also prevent the discussion being dominated by any one person, ensure differences of opinions are discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants to contribute. 3 Asking open questions, reflecting on significant issues, inviting further debate, probing responses accordingly, and seeking further clarification, as and where appropriate, will help to obtain sufficient depth and insight into the topic area.

Moderating online focus groups requires comparable skills, particularly if the discussion is synchronous, as the discussion may be dominated by those who can type proficiently. 36 It is therefore important that sufficient time and respect is accorded to those who may not be able to type as quickly. Asynchronous discussions are usually less problematic in this respect, as interactions are less instant. However, moderating an asynchronous discussion presents additional challenges, particularly if participants are geographically dispersed, as they may be online at different times. Consequently, the moderator will not always be present and the discussion may therefore need to occur over several days, which can be difficult to manage and facilitate and invariably requires considerable flexibility. 32 It is also worth recognising that establishing rapport with participants via online medium is often more challenging than via face-to-face and may therefore require additional time, skills, effort and consideration.

As with research interviews, focus groups should be guided by an appropriate interview schedule, as discussed earlier in the paper. For example, the schedule will usually be informed by the review of the literature and study aims, and will merely provide a topic guide to help inform subsequent discussions. To provide a verbatim account of the discussion, focus groups must be recorded, using an audio-recorder with a good quality multi-directional microphone. While videotaping is possible, some participants may find it obtrusive, 3 which may adversely affect group dynamics. The use (or not) of a video recorder, should therefore be carefully considered.

At the end of the focus group, a few minutes should be spent rounding up and reflecting on the discussion. 28 Depending on the topic area, it is possible that some participants may have revealed deeply personal issues and may therefore require further help and support, such as a constructive debrief or possibly even referral on to a relevant third party. It is also possible that some participants may feel that the discussion did not adequately reflect their views and, consequently, may no longer wish to be associated with the study. 28 Such occurrences are likely to be uncommon, but should they arise, it is important to further discuss any concerns and, if appropriate, offer them the opportunity to withdraw (including any data relating to them) from the study. Immediately after the discussion, researchers should compile notes regarding thoughts and ideas about the focus group, which can assist with data analysis and, if appropriate, any further data collection.

Qualitative research is increasingly being utilised within dental research to explore the experiences, perspectives, motivations and beliefs of participants. The contributions of qualitative research to evidence-based practice are increasingly being recognised, both as standalone research and as part of larger mixed-method studies, including clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups remain commonly used data collection methods in qualitative research, and with the advent of digital technologies, their utilisation continues to evolve. However, digital methods of qualitative data collection present additional methodological, ethical and practical considerations, but also potentially offer considerable flexibility to participants and researchers. Consequently, regardless of format, qualitative methods have significant potential to inform important areas of dental practice, policy and further related research.

Gussy M, Dickson-Swift V, Adams J . A scoping review of qualitative research in peer-reviewed dental publications. Int J Dent Hygiene 2013; 11 : 174–179.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 429–432.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 291–295.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 371–374.

Stewart K, Gill P, Chadwick B, Treasure E . Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 235–239.

Masood M, Thaliath E, Bower E, Newton J . An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39 : 193–203.

Ellis J, Levine A, Bedos C et al. Refusal of implant supported mandibular overdentures by elderly patients. Gerodontology 2011; 28 : 62–68.

Macfarlane S, Bucknall T . Digital Technologies in Research. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . 7th edition. pp. 71–86. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2015.

Google Scholar  

Lee R, Fielding N, Blank G . Online Research Methods in the Social Sciences: An Editorial Introduction. In Fielding N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 3–16. London: Sage Publications; 2016.

Creswell J . Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M . Qualitative research: Defining and designing In Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M (editors) Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual For Applied Research . pp. 1–40. London: Sage Publications, 2013.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pope C, Mays N . Qualitative research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311 : 42–45.

Giddings L, Grant B . A Trojan Horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Adv Nurs Sci 2007; 30 : 52–60.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P . Ethnography: Principles in Practice . London: Routledge, 1995.

Oltmann S . Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2016; 17 : Art. 15.

Patton M . Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

Wang M, Vinall-Collier K, Csikar J, Douglas G . A qualitative study of patients' views of techniques to reduce dental anxiety. J Dent 2017; 66 : 45–51.

Lindenmeyer A, Bowyer V, Roscoe J, Dale J, Sutcliffe P . Oral health awareness and care preferences in patients with diabetes: a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2013; 30 : 113–118.

Gallagher J, Clarke W, Wilson N . Understanding the motivation: a qualitative study of dental students' choice of professional career. Eur J Dent Educ 2008; 12 : 89–98.

Tod A . Interviewing. In Gerrish K, Lacey A (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Grey E, Harcourt D, O'Sullivan D, Buchanan H, Kipatrick N . A qualitative study of patients' motivations and expectations for dental implants. Br Dent J 2013; 214 : 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1178.

Farmer J, Peressini S, Lawrence H . Exploring the role of the dental hygienist in reducing oral health disparities in Canada: A qualitative study. Int J Dent Hygiene 2017; 10.1111/idh.12276.

McElhinney E, Cheater F, Kidd L . Undertaking qualitative health research in social virtual worlds. J Adv Nurs 2013; 70 : 1267–1275.

Health Research Authority. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. Available at https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/ (accessed September 2017).

Baillie J, Gill P, Courtenay P . Knowledge, understanding and experiences of peritonitis among patients, and their families, undertaking peritoneal dialysis: A mixed methods study protocol. J Adv Nurs 2017; 10.1111/jan.13400.

Kvale S . Interviews . Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1996.

Spradley J . The Ethnographic Interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

Goodman C, Evans C . Focus Groups. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . pp. 401–412. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015.

Shaha M, Wenzell J, Hill E . Planning and conducting focus group research with nurses. Nurse Res 2011; 18 : 77–87.

Wang G, Gao X, Edward C . Public perception of dental implants: a qualitative study. J Dent 2015; 43 : 798–805.

Bailey E . Contemporary views of dental practitioners' on patient safety. Br Dent J 2015; 219 : 535–540.

Abrams K, Gaiser T . Online Focus Groups. In Field N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 435–450. London: Sage Publications, 2016.

Poynter R . The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research . West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Kevern J, Webb C . Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 2001; 21 : 323–333.

Kitzinger J, Barbour R . Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of Focus Groups. In Barbour R S K J (editor) Developing Focus Group Research . pp. 1–20. London: Sage Publications, 1999.

Krueger R, Casey M . Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Lecturer (Adult Nursing), School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

Lecturer (Adult Nursing) and RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gill, P., Baillie, J. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age. Br Dent J 225 , 668–672 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2018

Published : 05 October 2018

Issue Date : 12 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

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

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions.

• Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

• Abimbola M. Oladayo
• Oluwakemi Odukoya
• Azeez Butali

BMC Public Health (2024)

Assessment of women’s needs, wishes and preferences regarding interprofessional guidance on nutrition in pregnancy – a qualitative study

• Merle Ebinghaus
• Caroline Johanna Agricola
• Birgit-Christiane Zyriax

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2024)

‘Baby mamas’ in Urban Ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in Accra, Ghana

• Rosemond Akpene Hiadzi
• Jemima Akweley Agyeman
• Godwin Banafo Akrong

Reproductive Health (2023)

Revolutionising dental technologies: a qualitative study on dental technicians’ perceptions of Artificial intelligence integration

• Galvin Sim Siang Lin
• Yook Shiang Ng
• Kah Hoay Chua

BMC Oral Health (2023)

Quick links

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

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

14 Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviewing

Svend Brinkmann, Department of Communication & Psychology, University of Aalborg

• Published: 01 July 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter gives an introduction to qualitative interviewing in its unstructured and semistructured forms. Initially, the human world is depicted as a conversational reality in which interviewing takes a central position as a research method. Interviewing is presented as a social practice that has a cultural history and that today appears in a variety of different formats. A number of distinctions are introduced, which are relevant when mapping the field of qualitative interviewing between different levels of structure, numbers of participants, media of interviewing, and also interviewer styles. A more detailed exposition of semistructured life world interviewing is offered because this is arguably the standard form of qualitative interviewing today.

Qualitative interviewing has today become a key method in the human and social sciences and also in many other corners of the scientific landscape from education to the health sciences. Some have even argued that interviewing has become the central resource through which the social sciences—and society—engages with the issues that concern it ( Rapley, 2001 ). For as long as we know, human beings have used conversation as a central tool to obtain knowledge about others. People talk with others in order to learn about how they experience the world, how they think, act, feel, and develop as individuals and in groups, and, in recent decades, such knowledge-producing conversations have been refined and discussed as qualitative interviews. 1

This chapter gives an overview of the landscape of qualitative interviewing, with a focus on its unstructured and semistructured forms. But what are interviews as such? In a classic text, Maccoby and Maccoby defined the interview as “a face-to-face verbal exchange, in which one person, the interviewer, attempts to elicit information or expressions of opinion or belief from another person or persons” ( Maccoby & Maccoby, 1954 , p. 449). This definition can be used as a very general starting point, but we shall soon see that different schools of qualitative interviewing have interpreted, modified, and added to such a generic characterization in many different ways.

I begin this chapter by giving an introduction to the broader conversational world of human beings in which interviewing takes place. I then provide a brief history of qualitative interviewing before introducing a number of conceptual and analytical distinctions relevant for the central epistemological and theoretical questions in the field of qualitative interviewing. Particular attention is given to the complementary positions of experience-focused interviewing (phenomenological positions) and language-focused interviewing (discourse-oriented positions).

Qualitative Interviewing in a Conversational World

Human beings are conversational creatures who live a dialogical life. Humankind is, in the words of philosopher Stephen Mulhall, “a kind of enacted conversation” ( Mulhall, 2007 , p. 58). From the earliest days of our lives, we are able to enter into proto-conversations with caregivers in ways that involve subtle forms of turn-taking and emotional communication. The dyads in which our earliest conversations occur are known to be prior to the child’s own sense of self. We are therefore communicating, and indeed conversational, creatures before we become subjective and monological ones ( Trevarthen, 1993 ).

Of course, we do learn to talk privately to ourselves and hide our emotional lives from others, but this is possible only because there was first an intersubjective communicative process with others. Our relationships with other people—and also with ourselves—are thus conversational. To understand ourselves, we must use a language that was first acquired conversationally, and we try out our interpretations in dialogue with others and the world. The human self exists only within what philosopher Charles Taylor has called “webs of interlocution” ( Taylor, 1989 , p. 36). Our very inquiring and interpreting selves are conversational at their core; they are constituted by the numerous relationships we have and have had with other people ( Brinkmann, 2012 ).

Unsurprisingly, conversations are therefore a rich and indispensable source of knowledge about personal and social aspects of our lives. In a philosophical sense, all human research is conversational because we are linguistic creatures and language is best understood in terms of the figure of conversation ( Mulhall, 2007 ). Since the late nineteenth century (in journalism) and the early twentieth century (in the social sciences), the conversational process of knowing has been conceptualized under the name of interviewing . The term itself testifies to the dialogical and interactional nature of human life. An interview is literally an inter-view , an interchange of views between two persons (or more) conversing about a theme of mutual interest ( Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008 ). Conversation in its Latin root means “dwelling with someone” or “wandering together with.” Similarly, the root meaning of dialogue is that of talk ( logos ) that goes back and forth ( dia- ) between persons ( Mannheim & Tedlock, 1995 , p. 4).

Thus conceived, the concept of conversation in the human and social sciences should be thought of in very broad terms and not just as a specific research method. Certainly, conversations in the form of interviewing have been refined into a set of techniques—to be explicated later—but they are also a mode of knowing and a fundamental ontology of persons. As philosopher Rom Harré has put it: “The primary human reality is persons in conversation” ( Harré, 1983 , p. 58). Cultures are constantly produced, reproduced, and revised in dialogues among their members ( Mannheim & Tedlock, 1995 , p. 2). Thus conceived, our everyday lives are conversational to their core. This also goes for the cultural investigation of cultural phenomena, or what we call social science. It is fruitful to see language, culture, and human self-understanding as emergent properties of conversations rather than the other way around. Dialogues are not several monologues that are added together but the basic, primordial form of associated human life. In the words of psychologist John Shotter:

[W]e live our daily social lives within an ambience of conversation, discussion, argumentation, negotiation, criticism and justification; much of it to do with problems of intelligibility and the legitimation of claims to truth. ( Shotter, 1993 , p. 29)

The pervasiveness of the figure of conversation in human life is both a burden and a blessing for qualitative interviewers. On the one hand, it means that qualitative interviewing becomes a very significant tool with which to understand central features of our conversational world. In response to widespread critiques of qualitative research that it is too subjective, one should say—given the picture of the conversational world painted here—that qualitative interviewing is, in fact, the most objective method of inquiry when one is interested in qualitative features of human experience, talk, and interaction because qualitative interviews are uniquely capable of grasping these features and thus of being adequate to their subject matters (which is one definition of objectivity).

On the other hand, it is also a burden for qualitative interviewers that they employ conversations to study a world that is already saturated with conversation. If Mulhall is right that humankind is a kind of enacted conversation, then the process of studying humans by the use of interviewing is analogous to fish wanting to study water. Fish surely “know” what water is in a practical, embodied sense, but it can be a great challenge to see and understand the obvious, that with which we are so familiar ( Brinkmann, 2012 ). In the same way, some interview researchers might think that interviewing others for research purposes is easy and simple to do because it employs a set of techniques that everyone masters by virtue of being capable of asking questions and recording the answers. This, however, is clearly an illusory simplicity, and many qualitative interviewers, even experienced ones, will recognize the frustrating experience of having conducted a large number of interviews (which is often the fun and seemingly simple part of a research project) but ending up with a huge amount of data, in the form of perhaps hundreds or even thousand pages of transcripts, and not knowing how to transform all this material into a solid, relevant, and thought-provoking analysis. Too much time is often spent on interviewing, whereas too little time is devoted to preparing for the interviews and subsequently analyzing the empirical materials. And, to continue on this note, too little time is normally used to reflect on the role of interviewing as a knowledge-producing social practice in itself. Due to its closeness to everyday conversations, interviewing, in short, is often simply taken for granted.

A further burden for today’s qualitative interviewers concerns the fact that interviewees are often almost too familiar with their role in the conversation. As Atkinson and Silverman argued some years ago, we live in an interview society , where the self is continually produced in confessional settings ranging from talk shows to research interviews ( Atkinson & Silverman, 1997 ). Because most of us, at least in the imagined hemisphere we call the West, are acquainted with interviews and their more or less standardized choreographies, qualitative interviews sometimes become a rather easy and regular affair, with few breaks and cracks in its conventions and norms, even though such breaks and cracks are often the most interesting aspects of conversational episodes ( Roulston, 2010 ; Tanggaard, 2007 ).

On the side of interviewers, Atkinson and Silverman find that “in promoting a particular view of narratives of personal experience, researchers too often recapitulate, in an uncritical fashion, features of the contemporary interview society” in which “the interview becomes a personal confessional” ( Atkinson & Silverman, 1997 , p. 305). Although the conversation in a broad sense is a human universal, qualitative interviewers often forget that the social practice of research interviewing in a narrower sense is a historically and culturally specific mode of interacting, and they too often construe “face-to-face interaction” as “the primordial, natural setting for communication,” as anthropologist Charles Briggs has pointed out ( Briggs, 2007 , p. 554).

As a consequence, the analysis of interviews is generally limited to what takes place during the concrete interaction phase with its questions and responses. In contrast to this, there is reason to believe that excellent interview research does not simply communicate a number of answers to an interviewer’s questions (with the researcher’s interpretive interjections added on), but includes an analytic focus on what Briggs has called “the larger set of practices of knowledge production that makes up the research from beginning to end” ( Briggs, 2007 , p. 566). Just as it is crucial in quantitative and experimental research to have an adequate understanding of the technologies of experimentation, it is similarly crucial in qualitative interviewing to understand the intricacies of this quite specific knowledge-producing practice, and interviewers should be particularly careful not to naturalize the form of human relationship that is a qualitative research interview and simply gloss it over as an unproblematic, direct, and universal source of knowledge. This, at least, is a basic assumption of the present chapter.

The History of Qualitative Interviewing

This takes us directly to the history of qualitative interviewing because only by tracking the history of how the current practices came to be can we fully understand their contingent natures and reflect on their roles in how we produce conversational knowledge through interviews today.

In one obvious sense, the use of conversations for knowledge-producing purposes is likely as old as human language and communication. The fact that we can pose questions to others about things that we are unknowledgeable about is a core capability of the human species. It expands our intellectual powers enormously because it enables us to share and distribute knowledge between us. Without this fundamental capability, it would be hard to imagine what human life would be like. It is furthermore a capacity that has developed into many different forms and ramifications in human societies. Already in 1924 could Emory Bogardus, an early American sociologist and founder of one of the first US sociology departments (at the University of Southern California) declare that interviewing “is as old as the human race” ( Bogardus, 1924 , p. 456). Bogardus discussed similarities and differences between the ways that physicians, lawyers, priests, journalists, detectives, social workers, and psychiatrists conduct interviews, with a remarkable sensitivity to the details of such different conversational practices.

Ancient Roots

In a more specific sense, and more essentially related to qualitative interviewing as a scientific human enterprise, conversations were used by Thucydides in ancient Greece as he interviewed participants from the Peloponnesian Wars to write the history of the wars. At roughly the same time, Socrates famously questioned—or we might say interviewed —his fellow citizens in ancient Athens and used the dialogues to develop knowledge about perennial human questions related to justice, truth, beauty, and the virtues. In recent years, some interview scholars have sought to rehabilitate a Socratic practice of interviewing, not least as an alternative to the often long monologues of phenomenological and narrative approaches to interviewing (see Dinkins, 2005 , who unites Socrates with a hermeneutic approach to dialogical knowledge) and also in an attempt to think of interviews as practices that can create a knowledgeable citizenry and not merely chart common opinions and attitudes ( Brinkmann, 2007 a ). Such varieties of interviewing have come to be known as dialogic and confrontational ( Roulston, 2010 , p. 26), and I return to these later.

Psychoanalysis

If we jump to more recent times, interviewing notably entered the human sciences with the advent of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, emerging around 1900. Freud is famous for his psychoanalytic theory of the unconscious, but it is significant that he developed this revolutionary theory (which, in many ways, changed the Western conceptions of humanity) through therapeutic conversations, or what he referred to as the talking cure . Freud conducted several hundred interviews with patients that used the patients’ free associations as a conversational engine. The therapist/interviewer should display what Freud called an “even-hovering attention” and catch on to anything that emerged as important ( Freud, 1963 ).

Freud made clear that research and treatment go hand in hand in psychoanalysis, and scholars have more recently pointed to the rich potentials of psychoanalytic conversations for qualitative interviewing today (see Kvale, 2003 ). For example, Wendy Hollway and Tony Jefferson have developed a more specific notion of the interview that is based on the psychoanalytic idea of “the defended subject” ( Hollway & Jefferson, 2000 ). In their eyes, interviewees “are motivated not to know certain aspects of themselves and... they produce biographical accounts which avoid such knowledge” (p. 169). This, obviously, has implications for how interviewers should proceed with analysis and interpretation of the biographical statements of interviewees and is a quite different approach to interviewing compared to more humanistic forms, as we shall see.

Many human and social scientists from the first half of the twentieth century were well versed in psychoanalytic theory, including those who pioneered qualitative interviewing. Jean Piaget, the famous developmental researcher, had even received training as a psychoanalyst himself, but his approach to interviewing is also worth mentioning in its own right. Piaget’s (1930) theory of child development was based on his interviews with children (often his own) in natural settings, frequently in combination with different experimental tasks. He would typically let the children talk freely about the weight and size of objects, or, in relation to his research on moral development, about different moral problems ( Piaget, 1932/1975 ), and he would notice the manner in which their thoughts unfolded.

Jumping from psychology to industrial research, Raymond Lee, one of the few historians of interviewing, has charted in detail how Piaget’s so-called clinical method of interviewing became an inspiration for Elton Mayo, who was responsible for one of the largest interview studies in history at the Hawthorne plant in Chicago in the 1920s ( Lee, 2011 ). This study arose from a need to interpret the curious results of a number of practical experiments on the effects of changes in illumination on production at the plant: it seemed that work output improved when the lighting of the production rooms was increased but also when it was decreased. This instigated an interview study, with more than 21,000 workers being interviewed for more than an hour each. The study was reported by Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) , but it was Mayo who laid out the methodological procedures in the 1930s, including careful—and surprisingly contemporary—advice to interviewers that is worth quoting at length:

Give your whole attention to the person interviewed, and make it evident that you are doing so.

Listen—don’t talk.

Never argue; never give advice.

what he wants to say

what he does not want to say

what he cannot say without help

As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subsequent correction the pattern (personal) that is being set before you. To test this, from time to time summarize what has been said and present for comment (e.g., “is this what you are telling me?”). Always do this with the greatest caution, that is, clarify in ways that do not add or distort.

Remember that everything said must be considered a personal confidence and not divulged to anyone. ( Mayo, 1933 , p. 65)

Many approaches to and textbooks on interviewing still follow such guidelines today, often forgetting, however, the specific historical circumstances under which this practice emerged.

Nondirective Interviewing

Not just Piaget, but also the humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers had influenced Mayo and others concerned with interviewing in the first half of the twentieth century. Like Freud, Rogers developed a conversational technique that was useful both in therapeutic contexts (so-called client-centered therapy), but also in research interviews, which he referred to as the “non-directive method as a technique for social research” ( Rogers, 1945 ). As he explained, the goal of this kind of research was to sample the respondent’s attitudes toward herself: “Through the non-directive interview we have an unbiased method by which we may plumb these private thoughts and perceptions of the individual.” (p. 282). In contrast to psychoanalysis, the respondent in client-centered research (and therapy) is a client rather than a patient, and the client is the expert (and hardly a “defended subject”). Although often framed in different terms, many contemporary interview researchers conceptualize the research interview in line with Rogers’s humanistic, nondirective approach, valorizing the respondents’ private experiences, narratives, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes.

As Lee recounts, the methods of interviewing developed at Hawthorne in the 1930s aroused interest among sociologists at the University of Chicago, who made it part of their methodological repertoire ( Lee, 2011 , p. 132). Rogers himself moved to Chicago in 1945 and was involved in different interdisciplinary projects. As is well known, the so-called Chicago School of sociology was highly influential in using and promoting a range of qualitative methods, not least ethnography, and it also spawned some of the most innovative theoretical developments in the social sciences, such as symbolic interactionism (e.g., Blumer, 1969 ).

As the Rogerian nondirective approach to interviewing gained in popularity, early critiques of this technique also emerged. In the 1950s, the famous sociologist David Riesman and his colleague Mark Benney criticized it for its lack of interviewer involvement (the nondirective aspects), and they warned against the tendency to use the level of “rapport” (much emphasized by interviewers inspired by therapy) in an interview to judge its qualities concerning knowledge. They thought it was a prejudice “to assume the more rapport-filled and intimate the relation, the more ‘truth’ the respondent will vouchsafe” ( Riesman & Benney, 1956 , p. 10). In their eyes, rapport-filled interviews would often spill over with “the flow of legend and cliché” (p. 11), since interviewees are likely to adapt their responses to what they assume the interviewer expects from them (see also Lee, 2008 , for an account of Riesman’s surprisingly contemporary discussion of interviewing). Issues such as these, originally raised more than fifty years ago, continue to be pertinent and largely unresolved in today’s interview research.

Classic Studies on Authoritarianism, Sexuality, and Consumerism

The mid-twentieth century witnessed a number of other large interview studies that remain classics in the field and that have also shaped public opinion about different social issues. I mention three examples here of such influential interview studies to show the variety of themes that have been studied through interviews: on authoritarianism, sexuality, and consumerism.

After World War II, there was a pressing need to understand the roots of anti-Semitism, and The Authoritarian Personality by the well-known critical theorist Adorno and co-workers controversially traced these roots to an authoritarian upbringing ( Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950 ). Their study was based on interviews and employed a combination of open qualitative interviews and much more structured questionnaires to produce the data. Although important knowledge of societal value may have been produced, the study has nonetheless been criticized on ethical grounds for using therapeutic techniques to get around the defenses of the interviewees in order to learn about their prejudices and authoritarian personality traits ( Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008 , p. 313).

Another famous interview study from the same period was Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male ( Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948 ). The research group interviewed about 6,000 men for an hour or more about their sexual behaviors, which generated results that were shocking to the public. In addition to the fascinating results, the book contains many interesting reflections on interviewing, and the authors discuss in great detail how to put the interviewees at ease, assure privacy, and how to frame the sequencing of sensitive topics (the contributions of Adorno and Kinsey are also described in Platt, 2002 ). As Kinsey put it in the book:

The interview has become an opportunity for him [the participant] to develop his own thinking, to express to himself his disappointments and hopes, to bring into the open things that he has previously been afraid to admit to himself, to work out solutions to his difficulties. He quickly comes to realize that a full and complete confession will serve his own interests. ( Kinsey et al., 1948 , p. 42)

The movie Kinsey , from 2004, starring Liam Neeson, is worth seeing from an interviewer’s point of view because it shows these early interviewers in action.

As a third example, it can be mentioned that qualitative interviewing quickly entered market research in the course of the twentieth century, which is hardly surprising as a consumer society developed ( Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005 ). A pioneer was Ernest Dichter, whose The Strategy of Desire (1960) communicates the results of an interview study about consumer motivation for buying a car. Interestingly, Dichter describes his interview technique as a “depth interview,” inspired both by psychoanalysis and also by the nondirective approach of Rogers. Market and consumer research continue to be among the largest areas of qualitative interviewing in contemporary consumer society, particularly in the form of focus groups, and, according to one estimate, as many as 5 percent of all adults in Great Britain have taken part in focus groups for marketing purposes, which certainly lends very concrete support to the thesis that we live in an “interview society” ( Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005 ).

Contemporary Conceptions of Qualitative Interviewing

Along with the different empirical studies, academics in the Western world have produced an enormous number of books on qualitative interviewing as a method, both in the form of “how to” books, but also in the form of more theoretical discussions. Spradley’s The Ethnographic Interview (1979) and Mishler’s Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (1986) were two important early books, the former being full of concrete advice about how to ask questions and the latter being a thorough theoretical analysis of interviews as speech events involving a joint construction of meaning.

Also following from the postmodern philosophies of social science that emerged in the 1980s (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ; Lyotard, 1984 ), in the past couple of decades there has been a veritable creative explosion in the kinds of interviews offered to researchers (see Fontana & Prokos, 2007 ), many of which question both the idea of psychoanalysis as being able to dig out truths from the psyche of the interviewee and that the nondirective approach to interviews can be “an unbiased method,” as Rogers had originally conceived it.

Roulston (2010) makes a comprehensive list of some of the most recent postmodern varieties of interviewing and also of more traditional ones (I have here shortened and adapted Roulston’s longer list):

Neo-positivist conceptions of the interview are still widespread and emphasize how the conversation can be used to reveal “the true self” of the interviewee (or the essence of her experiences), ideally resulting in solid, trustworthy data that are only accessible through interviews if the interviewer assumes a noninterfering role.

Romantic conceptions stress that the goal of interviewing is to obtain revelations and confessions from the interviewee facilitated by intimacy and rapport. These conceptions are somewhat close to neo-positivist ones, but put much more weight on the interviewer as an active and authentic midwife who assists in “giving birth” to revelations from the interviewee’s inner psyche.

Constructionist conceptions reject the romantic idea of authenticity and favor an idea of a subject that is locally produced within the situation. Thus, the focus is on the situational practice of interviewing and a distrust toward the discourse of data as permanent “nuggets” to be “mined” by the interviewer. Instead, the interviewer is often portrayed as a “traveler” together with the interviewee, with both involved in the co-construction of whatever happens in the conversation ( Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008 ).

Postmodern and transformative conceptions stage interviews as dialogic and performative events that aim to bring new kinds of people and new worlds into being. The interview is depicted as a chance for people to get together and create new possibilities for action. Some transformative conceptions focus on potential decolonizing aspects of interviewing, seeking to subvert the colonizing tendencies that some see in standard interviewing ( Smith, 1999 ). In addition, we can mention feminist ( Reinharz & Chase, 2002 ) and collaborative forms of interviewing ( Ellis & Berger, 2003 ) that aim to practice an engaged form of interviewing that focuses more on the researchers’ experience than in standard procedures, sometimes expressed through autoethnography, an approach that seeks to unite ethnographical and autobiographical intentions ( Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011 ).

It goes without saying that the overarching line of historical development laid out here, beginning in the earliest years of recorded human history and ending with postmodern, transformative, and co-constructed interviewing, is highly selective, and it could have been presented in countless other ways. I have made no attempt to divide up the history of qualitative interviewing into historical phases because I believe this would betray the criss-crossing lines of inspiration from different knowledge-producing practices. Socrates as an active interviewer inspires some of today’s constructionist and postmodern interviewers (as we shall see), whereas Freud and Rogers—as clinical interviewers—in different ways became important to people who use interviewing for purposes related to marketing and the industry. Thus, it seems that the only general rule is that no approach is never completely left behind and that everything can be—and often is—recycled in new clothes. This should not surprise us, because the richness and historical variability of the human conversational world demand that researchers use different conversational means of knowledge production for different purposes.

An Example of Qualitative Interviewing

Before moving on, here I introduce an example of what a typical qualitative interview may look like, taken from my own research, to illustrate more concretely what we are talking about when we use the term “qualitative interviewing.”

The following excerpt is from an interview I conducted about ten years ago. It was part of a research project in which I studied ethical dilemmas and moral reasoning in psychotherapeutic practice. The project was exploratory and sought an understanding of clinical psychologists’ own experiences of ethical problems in their work. The excerpt in Box 14.1 is not meant to represent an ideal interview, but rather to illustrate a common choreography that is inherent in much qualitative interviewing across the different varieties.

These few exchanges of questions and answers follow a certain conversational flow common in qualitative interviews. This flow can be divided into (1) question , (2) negotiation of meaning concerning the question raised and the themes addressed, (3) concrete description from the interviewee, (4) the interviewer’s interpretation of the description, and (5) coda . Then the cycle can start over with a new question, or else—as in this case—further questions about the same description can be posed.

The sequence begins when I pose a question (1) that calls for a concrete description, a question that seems to make sense to the interviewee. However, she cannot immediately think of or articulate an episode, and she expresses doubt concerning the meaning of one of the central concepts of the opening question (an “ethical dilemma”). This happens very often, and it can be quite difficult for interviewees (as for all of us) to describe concretely what one has experienced; we often resort to speaking in general terms (this characterizes professionals in particular, who have many general scripts at their disposal to articulate). There is some negotiation and attunement between us (2), before she decides to talk about a specific situation, but even though this is interesting and well described by the interviewee (3), she ends by returning (in what I call the coda) to a doubt about the appropriateness of the example. Before this, I summarize and rephrase her description (4), which she validates before she herself provides a kind of evaluation (5). After this, I have a number of follow-up questions that ask the interviewee to tell me more about the situation before a new question is introduced, and a similar conversational flow begins again.

The uncertainty of the interviewee about her own example around (2) illustrates the importance of assuring the interviewee that he or she is the expert concerning personal experience. The interviewer should make clear that, in general, there are no right or wrong answers or examples in qualitative interviewing and that the interviewer is interested in anything the interviewee comes up with. It is very common to find that participants are eager to be “good interviewees,” wanting to give the researcher something valuable, and this can paradoxically block the production of interesting stories and descriptions (although it did not in the present case).

In this case, a key point of the study became the term “ethical dilemma” itself; a term that is currently a nodal point in a huge number of different discourses with many different meanings, and it was thus interesting to hear the respondents’ immediate understandings of the term. Their widespread uncertainty concerning the referents of the term (which was shared by the interviewer!) was not only understandable, but actually conducive to developing my ideas further about (professional) ethics as something occurring in a zone of doubt rather than certainty (as otherwise stressed by some of the standard procedural approaches to ethics).

At the time of the interview, the interviewee was in her early fifties and had been a practicing psychologist for about twenty-five years. The interview was conducted in Danish, and I have translated it into English myself.

After some introductory remarks and an initial briefing, I, the interviewer (SB), go straight to a question that I had prepared in advance and ask the interviewee (IE) for a description of a concrete ethical dilemma (the numbers in square brackets refer to elements of the conversation that are addressed in the text):

SB: ( 1 ) First, I’d like to ask you to think back and describe a situation from your work as a psychologist in which you experienced an ethical dilemma... or a situation that in some way demanded special ethical considerations from you. IE: ( 2 ) Actually, I believe I experience those all the time. Well... I believe that the very fact that therapeutic work with other people demands that you keep... I don’t know if it is a dilemma—that’s what you asked about, right?—well, I don’t know if it’s a dilemma, but I think I have ethical considerations all the time. Considerations about how best to treat this human being with respect are demanded all the time... with the respect that is required, and I believe that there are many ethical considerations there. Ahm... When you work therapeutically you become very personal, get very close to another human being, and I think that is something you have to bear in mind constantly: How far are you allowed to go? How much can you enter into someone else’s universe? But that is not a dilemma, is it? SB: I guess it can be. Can you think of a concrete situation in which you faced this question about how close you can go, for example? IE: ( 3 ) Yes, I can. I just had a... a woman, whose husband has a mental disorder, or he has had a severe personality disorder, so their family life is much affected by this. And she comes to me to process this situation of hers, having two small children and a husband, and a system of treatment, which sometimes helps out and sometimes doesn’t. And it is very difficult for her to accept that someone close to her has a mental disorder or is fragile, it’s actually a long process. She is a nurse and family life has more or less been idyllic before he... before the personality disorder really emerged. So it is extremely difficult for her to accept that this family, which she had imagined would be the place for her children to grow up, is not going to be like that. It is actually going to be very, very different. And she tries to fight it all the time: “It just might be... if only... I guess it will be...” And it is never going to be any different! And there lies a dilemma, I think: How much is it going to be: “This is something you have to face, it is never going to be different!” So I have to work to make her pose the question herself: “What do you think? How long time... What are your thoughts? Do you think it will be different? What do they tell you at the psychiatric hospital? What is your experience?” And right now she is getting closer to seeing... I might fear that it ends in a divorce; I am not sure that she can cope with it. But no one can know this. I think there is a dilemma here, or some considerations about how much to push and press forward. SB: ( 4 ) Yes, the dilemma is perhaps that you—with your experience and knowledge about these matters—can see that the situation is not going to change much from its current state? IE: It certainly won’t. SB: And the question is... IE: ... how much I should push, for she does actually know this intellectually. ( 5 ) We have talked about it lots of times. But emotionally she hasn’t... she doesn’t have the power to face it. One day I told her: “I don’t think you develop, I don’t think anything happens to you, before you accept emotionally that he is not going to change.” I put her on the spot and she kept evading it and so on, but it...“You don’t accept it; I can tell that you don’t accept it. You understand it intellectually, but you still hope that it passes.” I pushed her a lot then. But I don’t know if this is an ethical dilemma, I am not sure...

When I first set out to conduct this study, I had something like a neo-positivist conception of interviewing in mind, in Roulston’s sense, believing that there were certain essential features connected to the experience of ethically difficult situations. When working further with the theme, and after learning from my interviewees, I gradually grew suspicious of this idea, and I also came to appreciate a more constructionist conception of interviewing, according to which the interview situation itself—including the interviewer—plays an important role in the production of talk.

Other things to note about the example in Box 14.1 include the asymmetrical distribution of talk that can be observed between the two conversationalists: the interviewer poses rather short questions, and the interviewee gives long and elaborated answers. This is not always so (some respondents are more reluctant or simply less talkative), but this asymmetry has been highlighted as a sign of quality in the literature on qualitative interviewing (e.g., Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008 ). There is also quite a bit of dramatization in the interviewee’s talk in the excerpt; for example, when she uses reported speech to stage a dialogue between herself and her client, which signals that she is capable with words and a good storyteller. On the side of the interviewer, we see that no attempts are made to contradict or question the interviewee’s account, and the part of the interview quoted here thus looks quite a bit like that recommended by Mayo in the 1930s and by later nondirective interviewers: the interviewer listens a lot and does not talk much, he does not argue or give advice, and he plots out tentatively (in [4]) what the interviewee is saying, which is commented on and verified (cf. Mayo, 1933 , p. 65).

Different Forms of Qualitative Research Interviews

The semistructured, face-to-face interview in Box 14.1 is probably very typical, but it merely represents one form an interview may take, and there is a huge variety of other forms. Each form has certain advantages and disadvantages that researchers and recipients of research alike should be aware of. I here describe how qualitative interviews may differ in terms of structure, the number of participants in each interview, different media, and also different interviewer styles.

It is common to draw a distinction between structured, semistructured, and unstructured interviews. This distinction, however, should be thought of as a continuum ranging from relatively structured to relatively unstructured formats. I use the word “relatively” because, on the one end of the continuum, as Parker (2005) argues, there really is no such thing as a completely structured interview “because people always say things that spill beyond the structure, before the interview starts and when the recorder has been turned off” (p. 53). Utterances that “spill beyond the structure” are often important and are even sometimes the key to understanding the interviewee’s answers to the structured questions. One line of criticism against standardized survey interviewing actually concerns the fact that meanings and interpretive frames that go beyond the predetermined structure are left out, with the risk that the researcher cannot understand what actually goes on in the interaction.

We might add to Parker’s argument that there is also no such thing as a completely unstructured interview because the interviewer always has an idea about what should take place in the conversation. Even some of the least structured interviews, such as life history interviews that only have one question prepared in advance (e.g., “I would like you to tell me the story of your life. Please begin as far back as you remember and include as many details as possible”), provide structure to the conversation by framing it in accordance with certain specific conversational norms rather than others. Another way to put this is to say that there are no such things as nonleading questions. All questions lead the interviewee in certain directions, but it is generally preferably to lead participants only to talk about certain themes , rather than to specific opinions about these themes.

So, it is not possible to avoid structure entirely nor would it be desirable, but it is possible to provide a structure that it flexible enough for interviewees to be able to raise questions and concerns in their own words and from their own perspectives. Anthropologist Bruno Latour has argued that this is one definition of objectivity that human and social science can work with, in the sense of “allowing the object to object” ( Latour, 2000 ). Latour pinpoints a problem in the human and social sciences related to the fact that, for these sciences and unlike in the natural sciences “nothing is more difficult than to find a way to render objects able to object to the utterances that we make about them” (p. 115). He finds that human beings behave too easily as if they had been mastered by the researcher’s agenda, which often results in trivial and predictable research that tells us nothing new. What should be done instead is to allow research participants to be “interested, active, disobedient, fully involved in what is said about themselves by others” (p. 116). This does not imply a total elimination of structure, but it demands careful preparation and reflection on how to involve interviewees actively, how to avoid flooding the conversation with social science categories, and how to provoke interviewees in a respectful way to bring contrasting perspectives to light ( Parker, 2005 , p. 63).

In spite of this caveat—that neither completely structured nor completely unstructured interviews are possible—it may still be worthwhile to distinguish between more or less structure, with semistructured interviews somewhere in the middle as the standard approach to qualitative interviewing.

Structured Interviews

Structured interviews are employed in surveys and are typically based on the same research logic as questionnaires: standardized ways of asking questions are thought to lead to answers that can be compared across participants and possibly quantified. Interviewers are supposed to “read questions exactly as worded to every respondent and are trained never to provide information beyond what is scripted in the questionnaire” ( Conrad & Schober, 2008 , p. 173). Although structured interviews are useful for some purposes, they do not take advantage of the dialogical potentials for knowledge production inherent in human conversations. They are passive recordings of people’s opinions and attitudes and often reveal more about the cultural conventions of how one should answer specific questions than about the conversational production of social life itself. I do not address these structured forms in greater detail in this chapter.

Unstructured Interviews

At the other end of the continuum lie interviews that have little preset structure. These are, for example, the life story interview seeking to highlight “the most important influences, experiences, circumstances, issues, themes, and lessons of a lifetime” ( Atkinson, 2002 , p. 125). What these aspects are for an individual cannot be known in advance but emerge in the course of spending time with the interviewee, which means that the interviewer cannot prepare for a life story interview by devising a lot of specific questions but must instead think about how to facilitate the telling of the life story. After the opening request for a narrative, the main role of the interviewer is to remain a listener, withholding desires to interrupt and sporadically asking questions that may clarify the story. The life story interview is a variant of the more general genre of narrative interviewing about which Wengraf’s (2001)   Qualitative Research Interviewing gives a particularly thorough account, focusing on biographical-narrative depth interviews. These need not concern the life story as a whole, but may address other, more specific storied aspects of human lives, building on the narratological insight that humans experience and act in the world through narratives. Narratives, in this light, are a root metaphor for psychological processes ( Sarbin, 1986 ). With the more focused narrative interviews, we get nearer to semistructured interviews as the middle ground between structured and unstructured interviews.

Semistructured Interviews

Interviews in the semistructured format are sometimes equated with qualitative interviewing as such ( Warren, 2002 ). They are probably also the most widespread form of interviews in the human and social sciences and are sometimes the only format given attention to in textbooks on qualitative research (e.g., Flick, 2002 ). Compared to structured interviews, semistructured interviews can make better use of the knowledge-producing potentials of dialogues by allowing much more leeway for following up on whatever angles are deemed important by the interviewee; as well, the interviewer has a greater chance of becoming visible as a knowledge-producing participant in the process itself, rather than hiding behind a preset interview guide. And, compared to unstructured interviews, the interviewer has a greater say in focusing the conversation on issues that he or she deems important in relation to the research project.

One definition of the qualitative research interview (in a generic form, but tending toward the semistructured format) reads: “It is defined as an interview with the purpose of obtaining descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena” ( Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008 , p. 3). The key words here are purpose, descriptions, life world , and interpretation of meaning :

Purpose : Unlike everyday conversations with friends or family members, qualitative interviews are not conducted for their own sake; they are not a goal in themselves, but are staged and conducted to serve the researcher’s goal of producing knowledge (and there may be other, ulterior goals like obtaining a degree, furthering one’s career, positioning oneself in the field, etc.). All sorts of motives may play a role in the staging of interviews, and good interview reports often contain a reflexive account and a discussion of both individual and social aspects of such motives (does it matter, for example, if the interviewer is a woman, perhaps identifying as a feminist, interviewing other women?). Clearly, the fact that interviews are conversations conducted for a purpose, which sets the agenda, raises a number of issues having to do with power and control that are important to reflect on for epistemic as well as ethical reasons ( Brinkmann, 2007 b ).

Descriptions : In most interview studies, the goal is to obtain the interviewee’s descriptions rather than reflections or theorizations. In line with a widespread phenomenological perspective (explained more fully later), interviewers are normally seeking descriptions of how interviewees experience the world, its episodes and events, rather than speculations about why they have certain experiences. Good interview questions thus invite interviewees to give descriptions; for example, “Could you please describe a situation for me in which you became angry?,” “What happened?,” “How did you experience anger?,” “How did it feel?” (of course, only one of these questions should be posed at a time), and good interviewers tend to avoid more abstract and reflective questions such as “What does anger mean to you?,” “If I say ‘anger,’ what do you think of then?,” “Why do you think that you tend to feel angry?” Such questions may be productive in the conversation, but interviewers will normally defer them until more descriptive aspects have been covered.

Life world : The concept of the life world goes back to the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, who introduced it in 1936, in his book The Crisis of the European Sciences to refer to the intersubjectively shared and meaningful world in which humans conduct their lives and experience significant phenomena ( Husserl, 1954 ). It is a prereflective and pretheorized world in which anger, for example, is a meaningful human expression in response to having one’s rights violated (or something similar) before it is a process occurring in the neurophysiological and endocrinological systems (“before” should here be taken in a logical, rather than temporal, sense). If anger did not appear to human beings as a meaningful experienced phenomenon in their life world, there would be no reason to investigate it scientifically because there would, in a sense, be nothing to investigate (since anger is primarily identified as a life world phenomenon). In qualitative research in general, as in qualitative interviewing in particular, there is a primacy of the life world as experienced, as something prior to the scientific theories we may formulate about it. This was well expressed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, another famous phenomenologist, who built on the work of Husserl:

All my knowledge of the world, even my scientific knowledge, is gained from my own particular point of view, or from some experience of the world without which the symbols of science would be meaningless. The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced [i.e., the life world], and if we want to subject science itself to rigorous scrutiny and arrive at a precise assessment of its meaning and scope, we must begin by re-awakening the basic experiences of the world of which science is the second order expression. ( Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2002 , p. ix)

Objectifying sciences give us second-order understandings of the world, but qualitative research is meant to provide a first-order understanding through concrete description. Whether interview researchers express themselves in the idiom of phenomenology, or use the language of some other qualitative paradigm (discourse analysis, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, etc.), they most often decide to use interviews to elicit descriptions of the life world—or whatever term the given paradigm employs: the interaction order (to speak with Erving Goffman, an exponent of symbolic interactionism), the immortal ordinary society (to speak with Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology), or the set of interpretative repertoires that make something meaningful (to speak with Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell, significant discursive psychologists). 2

Interpret the meaning : Even if interviewers are generally interested in how people experience and act in the world prior to abstract theorizations, they must nonetheless often engage in interpretations of people’s experiences and actions as described in interviews. One reason for this is that life world phenomena are rarely transparent and “monovocal” but are rather “polyvocal” and sometimes even contradictory, permitting multiple readings and interpretations. Who is to say what someone’s description of anger signifies? Obviously, the person having experienced the anger should be listened to, but if there is one lesson to learn from twentieth-century human science (ranging from psychoanalysis to poststructuralism) it is that we, as human subjects, do not have full authority concerning how to understand our lives because we do not have—and can never have—full insight into the forces that have created us ( Butler, 2005 ). We are, as Judith Butler has argued, authored by what precedes and exceeds us (p. 82), even when we are considered—as in qualitative interviews—to be authors of our own utterances. The interpretation of the meanings of the phenomena described by the interviewee can favorably be built into the conversation itself (as I tried to do at point (4) in the excerpt in Box 14.1 ) because this will at least give the interviewee a chance to object to a certain interpretation, but it is a process that goes on throughout an interview project.

In my opinion, too rarely do interview researchers allow themselves to follow the different, polyvocal, and sometimes contradictory meanings that emerge through different voices in interviewee accounts. Analysts of interviews are generally looking for the voice of the interviewee, thereby ignoring internal conflicts in narratives and descriptions. Stephen Frosh has raised this concern from a discursive and psychoanalytic perspective, and he criticizes the narrativist tendency among qualitative researchers to present human experience in ways that set up coherent themes that constitute integrated wholes ( Frosh, 2007 ). Often, it is the case that the stories people tell are ambiguous and full of gaps, especially for people “on the margins of hegemonic discourses” (p. 637). Like Butler, Frosh finds that the human subject is never a whole, “is always riven with partial drives, social discourses that frame available modes of experience, ways of being that are contradictory and reflect the shifting allegiances of power as they play across the body and the mind” (p. 638). If this is so, it is important to be open to multiple interpretations of what is said and done in an interview. Fortunately, some qualitative approaches do have an eye to this and have designed ways to comprehend complexity; for example, the so-called listening guide developed by Carol Gilligan and co-workers and designed to listen for multiple voices in interviewee accounts (for a recent version of this approach, see Sorsoli & Tolman, 2008 ).

To sum up, the “meanings” that qualitative interviewers are commonly looking for are often multiple, perspectival, and contradictory and thus demand careful interpretation. And there is much controversy in the qualitative communities concerning whether meanings are essentially “there” to be articulated by the interviewee and interpreted by the interviewer (emphasized in particular by phenomenological approaches) or whether meanings are constructed locally (i.e., arise dialogically in a process that centrally involves the interviewer as co-constructor, as stressed by discursive and constructionist approaches). Regardless of one’s epistemological standpoint, it remains important for interviewers to make clear, when they design, conduct, and communicate their research, how they approach this thorny issue because this will make it much easier for readers of interview reports to understand and assess what is communicated.

I have now introduced a working definition of the relatively unstructured and semistructured qualitative research interview and emphasized four vital aspects: such interviews are structured by the interviewer’s purpose of obtaining knowledge; they revolve around descriptions provided by the interviewee; such descriptions are commonly about life world phenomena as experienced; and understanding the meaning of the descriptions involves some kind of interpretation . Although these aspects capture what is essential to a large number of qualitative interview studies now and in the past (and likely many in the future as well), it is important to stress that all these aspects can be and have been challenged in the methodological literature.

In relation to qualitative interviewing, as in qualitative research in general, there is never one correct way to understand or practice a method or a technique because everything depends on concrete circumstances and on the researcher’s intentions when conducting a particular research project. This does not mean that “anything goes” and that nothing is never better than something else, but it does mean that what is “better” is always relative to what one is interested in doing or knowing. The answer to the question “What’s the proper definition of and approach to qualitative interviewing?” must thus be: “It depends on what you wish to achieve by interviewing people for research purposes!” Unfortunately, too many interview researchers simply take one or another approach to interviewing for granted as the only correct one and forget to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of their favored approach (sometimes they are not even aware that other approaches exist). These researchers thus proceed without properly theorizing their means of knowledge production.

Individual and Group Interviews

It is not only the interviewer’s agenda and research interests that structure the interaction in an interview. Unsurprisingly, the number of participants also plays an important role. As the history of interviewing testifies, the standard format of qualitative interviewing is with one person interviewing another person. This format was illustrated in the example in Box 14.1 , and although this chapter is not about group interviews, I briefly mention these to illustrate how they differ from conventional forms of qualitative interviewing.

Group Interviews

There is an increasing use of group interviews. These have been in use since the 1920s but became standard practice only after the 1950s, when market researchers in particular developed what they termed “focus group interviews” to study consumer preferences. Today, focus groups dominate consumer research and are also often used in health, education, and evaluation research; they are in fact becoming increasingly common across many disciplines in the social sciences.

In focus groups, the interviewer is conceived as a “moderator” who focuses the group discussion on specific themes of interest, and she or he will often use the group dynamic instrumentally to include a number of different perspectives on the give themes ( Morgan, 2002 ). Often, group interviews are more dynamic and flexible in comparison with individual interviews, and they may be closer to everyday discussions. They can be used, for example, when the researcher is not so much interested in people’s descriptions of their experiences as in how participants discuss, argue, and justify their opinions and attitudes.

The standard size for a focus group is between six to ten participants, led by a moderator ( Chrzanowska, 2002 ). Recently, qualitative researchers have also experimented with groups of only two participants (sometimes referred to as “the two-person interview,” although there are literally three people if one counts the interviewer), mainly because it makes the research process easier to handle than with larger groups, where people will often not show up. The moderator introduces the topics for discussion and facilitates the interchange. The point is not to reach consensus about the issues discussed but to have different viewpoints articulated about an issue. Focus group interviews are well suited for exploratory studies in little-known domains or about newly emerging social phenomena because the dynamic social interaction that results may provide more spontaneous expressions than occur in individual interviews.

Individual Interviews

Individual interviews with one interviewer and one interviewee may sometimes be less lively than group interviews, but they have a couple of other advantages: First, it is often easier for the interviewer in one-on-one interviews to lead the conversation in a direction that is useful in relation to the interviewer’s research interests. Second, when studying aspects of people’s lives that are personal, sensitive, or even taboo, it is preferable to use individual interviews that allow for more confidentiality and often make it easier for the interviewer to create an atmosphere of trust and discretion. It is very doubtful, to take a rather extreme example, that Kinsey and his colleagues could have achieved the honest descriptions of sexual behaviors from their respondents had they conducted group rather than individual interviews. And there are obviously also certain themes that simply demand one person telling a story without being interrupted or gainsaid by other participants, such as in biographical research.

Although late-modern Western culture now looks on the individual, face-to-face interview as a completely common and natural occurrence, we should be very careful not to naturalize this particular form of human relationship, as I emphasized earlier. Briggs (2007) has argued that this form of relationship implies a certain “field of communicability,” referring to a socially situated construction of communicative processes (p. 556). This construction is an artefact of cultural-historical practices and is placed within organized social fields that produce different roles, positions, relations, and forms of agency that are frequently taken for granted. There are thus certain rights, duties, and a repertoire of acts that open up when entering the field of communicability of qualitative interviewing—and others that close down. Much about this field of communicability may seem trivial—that the interviewer asks questions and the interviewee answers, that the interviewee conveys personal information that he or she would not normally tell a stranger, that the interviewee is positioned as the expert on that person’s own life, and so on—but the role of this field in the process of knowledge production is very rarely addressed by interview researchers. We too seldom stop and consider the “magic” of interviewing—that a stranger is willing to tell an interviewer so many things about her life simply because the interviewer presents herself as a researcher. Rather than naturalize this practice, we should defamiliarize ourselves with it—like ethnographers visiting a strange “interview culture”—in order to understand and appreciate its role in scientific knowledge production.

Interviewing Using Different Media

Following from Briggs’s analysis of the communicability of interviewing, it is noteworthy that the otherwise standardized format of “face-to-face interaction” was named as late as the early twentieth century by the sociologist Charles Horton Cooley but was since constructed as “primordial, authentic, quintessentially human, and necessary” ( Briggs, 2007 , p. 553). It is sometimes forgotten that the face-to-face interview, as a kind of interaction mediated by this particular social arrangement, also has a history. Other well-known media employed in qualitative interviewing include the telephone and the internet, and here we briefly look at differences among face-to-face, telephone, and internet interviews.

Face-to-Face Interviews

In face-to-face interviews, people are present not only as conversing minds, but as flesh-and-blood creatures who may laugh, cry, smile, tremble, and otherwise give away much information in terms of gestures, body language, and facial expressions. Interviewers thus have the richest source of knowledge available here, but the challenge concerns how to use it productively. In most cases, how people look and act is forgotten once the transcript is made, and the researcher carries out her analyses using the stack of transcripts rather than the embodied interaction that took place. This is a problem especially when a research assistant or someone other than the interviewer transcribes the interview because, in that case, it is not possible to note all the nonverbal signs and gestures that occurred. If possible, it is therefore preferable for the interviewer herself to transcribe the conversations, and it is optimal to do so relatively soon after the conversations are over (e.g., within a couple of days) because this guarantees better recollection of the body language, the atmosphere, and other nontranscribable features of the interaction.

Telephone Interviews

According to Shuy (2002) , the telephone interview has “swept the polling and survey industry in recent years and is now the dominant approach” (p. 539). It often follows a very structured format. In a research context, the use of telephone conversations was pioneered by conversation analysts, who were able to identify a number of common conversational mechanisms (related to turn-taking, adjacency pairs such as questions–answers, etc.) from the rather constricted format that is possible over the telephone. The constricted format may in itself have been productive in throwing light on certain core features of human talk.

Shuy emphasizes a number of advantages of telephone interviewing, such as reduced interviewer effects (important in structured polling interviews, for example), better interviewer uniformity, greater standardization of questions, greater cost-efficiency, increased researcher safety ( Shuy, 2002 , p. 540), and—we might add—better opportunities for interviewing people who live far from the interviewer. In qualitative interviewing, however, it is not possible (nor desirable) to avoid these “interviewer effects” because the interviewer herself is the research instrument, so only the latter couple of points are relevant in this context. However, Shuy also highlights some advantages of in-person interviewing versus telephone interviewing, such as more accurate responses due to contextual naturalness, greater likelihood of self-generated answers, more symmetrical distribution of interactive power, greater effectiveness with complex issues, more thoughtful responses, and the fact that such interviews are better in relation to sensitive questions (pp. 541–544). The large majority of interviews characterized as “qualitative” are conducted face-to-face, mainly because of the advantages listed by Shuy.

Internet Interviews

E-mail and chat interviews are varieties of internet interviewing, with e-mail interviewing normally implying an asynchronous interaction in time, with the interviewer writing a question and then waiting for a response, and chat interviews being synchronous or occurring in “real time” ( Mann & Stewart, 2002 ). The latter can approach a conversational format that resembles face-to-face interviews, with its quick turn takings. When doing online ethnographies (e.g., in virtual realities on the internet), chat interviews are important (see Markham, 2005 , on online ethnography). One advantage of e-mail and chat interviews is that they are “self-transcribing” in the sense that the written text itself is the medium through which researcher and respondents express themselves, and the text is thus basically ready for analysis the minute it has been typed ( Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008 , p. 149).

Disadvantages of such interview forms are related to the demanded skills of written communication. Not everyone is sufficiently skilled at writing to be able to express themselves in rich and detailed ways. Most research participants are also more comfortable when talking, rather than writing, about their lives and experiences. However, as the psychiatrist Finn Skårderud has pointed out, there are some exceptions here, and Skårderud emphasizes in particular that internet conversations can be useful when communicating with people who have problematic relationships to their bodies (e.g., eating disorders). For such people, the physical presence of a problematic body can represent an unwanted disturbance ( Skårderud, 2003 ).

In concluding on the different media of interviewing, it should be emphasized that all interviews are mediated, even if only by the spoken words and the historical arrangement of questioning through face-to-face interaction, and there is no universally correct medium that will always guarantee success. Interviewers should choose their medium according to their knowledge interests and should minimally reflect on the effects of communicating through one medium rather than another. That said, most of the themes that qualitative interviewers are interested in lend themselves more easily to face-to-face interviewing because of the trust, confidentiality, and contextual richness that this format enables.

Different Styles of Interviewing

We have now seen how interviews may differ in terms of structure, number of participants, and media. Another crucial factor is the style of interviewing; that is, the way the interviewer acts and positions herself in the conversation. In relation to this, Wengraf (2001) has introduced a general distinction between “receptive” interviewer styles and assertive styles (or strategies, as he calls them), with the former being close to Carl Rogers’s model of psychotherapy and the latter being more in line with active and Socratic approaches to interviewing (both of which were addressed earlier). Here, I describe these in greater detail as two ends on a continuum.

Receptive Interviewing

According to Wengraf, a receptive style empowers informants and enables them to have “a large measure of control in the way in which they answer the relatively few and relatively open questions they are asked” ( Wengraf, 2001 , p. 155). Much of what was said earlier on the historical contributions of Elton Mayo and Carl Rogers and on semistructured life world interviewing addressed the receptive style in a broad sense; this is often thought of as self-evidently correct, so that no alternatives are considered. Therefore, I devote more space to articulate the somewhat more unusual assertive style, which is attracting more and more attention today.

Assertive Interviewing

Wengraf states that an assertive style may come close to a legal interrogation and enables the interviewer “to control the responses, provoke and illuminate self-contradiction, absences, provoke self-reflexivity and development” (2001, p. 155), perhaps approaching transformative conceptions of interviewing to use Roulston’s terminology mentioned earlier.

A well-known and more positive exposition of the assertive style was developed by Holstein and Gubrium in their book on The Active Interview ( Holstein & Gubrium, 1995 ). They argued that, in reality, there is not much of a choice because interviews are unavoidably interpretively active, meaning-making practices, and this would apply even when interviewers attempt a more receptive style. In this case, however, their role in meaning-making would simply be more elusive and more difficult to take into account when analyzing interview talk. A consequence of this line of argument is that it is preferable for interviewers to take their inevitable role as co-constructors of meaning into account rather than trying to downplay it.

Discourse analysts such as Potter and Wetherell (1987) have also developed an active, assertive practice of interviewing. In a classic text, they describe the constructive role of the interview researcher and summarize discourse analytic interviewing as follows:

First, variation in response is as important as consistency. Second, techniques, which allow diversity rather than those which eliminate it are emphasized, resulting in more informal conversational exchanges and third, interviewers are seen as active participants rather than like speaking questionnaires. ( Potter & Wetherell, 1987 , p. 165)

Variation, diversity, informality, and an active interviewer are key, and the interview process, for Potter and Wetherell, is meant to lead to articulations of the “interpretative repertoires” of the interviewees, but without the interviewer investigating the legitimacy of these repertoires in the interview situation or the respondent’s ways of justifying them. This is in contrast to Socratic and other confronting variants of active interviews, which are designed not just to map participants’ understandings and beliefs, but also to study how participants justify their understandings and beliefs.

To illustrate concretely what a confrontative assertive style looks like, we turn to a simple and very short example from Plato’s The Republic , with Socrates as interviewer (discussed in Brinkmann, 2007 a ). The passage very elegantly demonstrates that no moral rules are self-applying or self-interpreting but must always be understood contextually. Socrates is in a conversation with Cephalus, who believes that justice ( dikaiosune )—here “doing right”—can be stated in universal rules, such as “tell the truth” and “return borrowed items”:

“That’s fair enough, Cephalus,” I [Socrates] said. “But are we really to say that doing right consists simply and solely in truthfulness and returning anything we have borrowed? Are those not actions that can be sometimes right and sometimes wrong? For instance, if one borrowed a weapon from a friend who subsequently went out of his mind and then asked for it back, surely it would be generally agreed that one ought not to return it, and that it would not be right to do so, not to consent to tell the strict truth to a madman?” “That is true,” he [Cephalus] replied. “Well then,” I [Socrates] said, “telling the truth and returning what we have borrowed is not the definition of doing right.” ( Plato, 1987 , pp. 65–66)

Here, the conversation is interrupted by Polemarchus who disagrees with Socrates’ preliminary conclusion, and Cephalus quickly leaves to go to a sacrifice. Then Polemarchus takes Cephalus’s position as Socrates’ discussion partner and the conversation continues as if no substitution had happened.

The passage is instructive because it shows us what qualitative interviewing normally is not . Socrates violates almost every standard principle of qualitative research interviewing, and we can see that the conversation is a great contrast to my own interview excerpt in Box 14.1 . Socrates talks much more than his respondent, he has not asked Cephalus to “describe a situation in which he has experienced justice” or “tell a story about doing right from his own experience” or a similar concretely descriptive question probing for “lived experience.” Instead, they are talking about the definition of an important general concept. Socrates contradicts and challenges his respondent’s view. There is no debriefing or attempt to make sure that the interaction was a pleasant experience for Cephalus, the interview is conducted in public rather than private, and the topic is not private experiences or biographical details, but justice, a theme of common human interest, at least of interest to all citizens of Athens.

Sometimes, the conversation partners in the Platonic dialogues settle on a shared definition, but more often the dialogue ends without any final, unarguable definition of the central concept (e.g., justice, virtue, love). This lack of resolution— aporia in Greek—can be interpreted as illustrating the open-ended character of our conversational reality, including the open-ended character of the discursively produced knowledge of human social and historical life. If humankind is a kind of enacted conversation, to return to my opening remarks in this chapter, the goal of social science is perhaps not to arrive at “fixed knowledge” once and for all, but to help human beings improve the quality of their conversational reality, to help them know their own society and social practices, and debate the goals and values that are important in their lives ( Flyvbjerg, 2001 ).

Interviews can be intentionally assertive, active, and confronting (good examples are found in Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985 , who explicitly acknowledge a debt to Socrates), but the assertive approach can also be employed post hoc as a more analytic perspective. Consider, for example, the excerpt in Box 14.2 from a study by Shweder and Much (1987) , discussed in detail by Valsiner (2007 , pp. 385–386). The interview is set in India and was part of a research project studying moral reasoning in a cross-cultural research design. Earlier in the interview, Babaji (the interviewee) has been presented with a variant of the famous Heinz dilemma (here called the Ashok dilemma), invented by moral developmental psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg to assess people’s moral capabilities ( Kohlberg, 1981 ): a man (Heinz/Ashok) has a wife who is ill and will die if he does not steal some medicine from a pharmacist (who refuses to sell the medicine at a price that the man can afford). According to Babaji’s Hinduism, stealing is not permitted, and the interview unfolds from there (see Box 14.2 ).

According to Valsiner (2007) , we see in the interview how the interviewer (Richard Shweder), in a very active or assertive way, does everything he can to persuade Babaji to accept the Western framing of the dilemma and see the tension between stealing for a moral reason and stealing as an immoral act. But Babaji fails to, or refuses to, see the situation as a dilemma and first attempts to articulate other possibilities in addition to stealing/not stealing (viz. give shamanistic instructions) before finally suggesting that Ashok sells himself in order to raise the money. As such, the interview flow is best understood as an active and confrontational encounter between two quite different worldviews that are revealed exactly because the interviewer acts in a confronting, although not disrespectful, way. 3

Furthermore, the excerpt illustrates how cross-cultural interviewing can be quite difficult—but also extremely interesting—not least when conducted in “noninterview societies” ( Ryen, 2002 , p. 337); that is, in societies where interviewing is not common or recognized as a knowledge-producing instrument. All qualitative interviewing is a collaborative accomplishment, but this becomes exceedingly visible when collaborating cross-culturally.

Analytic Approaches to Interviewing

Before closing this chapter, I give a very brief introduction to different perspectives on how to analyze interviews. Obviously, I cannot here cover the immense variety of phenomenological, discursive, conversation analytic, feminist, poststructuralist, psychoanalytic perspectives, so instead I present a simplified dichotomy that should really be thought of as a continuum. The dichotomy has already played an implicit role earlier because it implies a distinction between interview talk as primarily descriptive (phenomenological) reports (concentrating on the “what” of communication) and interview talk as primarily (discursive) accounts (chiefly concerned with the “how” of talk). Phenomenological approaches to interviewing in a broad sense (exemplified in my exposition of semistructured life world interviewing) try to get as close as possible to precise descriptions of what people have experienced, whereas other analytical approaches (found, e.g., in certain schools of discourse analysis and conversation analysis) focus on how people express themselves and give accounts occasioned by the situation in which they find themselves. The two approaches are contrasted in Table 14.1 , with “what” approaches on the left-hand side and “how” approaches on the right-hand side.

Interviewer: Why doesn’t Hindu dharma permit stealing? Babaji: If he steals, it is a sin—so what virtue is there in saving a life. Hindu dharma keeps man from sinning. Interviewer: Why would it be a sin? Isn’t there a saying “On must jump into fire for others”? Babaji: That is there in our dharma—sacrifice, but not stealing. Interviewer: But if he doesn’t provide the medicine for his wife, she will die. Wouldn’t it be a sin to let her die? Babaji: That’s why, according to the capacities and powers which God has given him, he should try to give her shamanistic instructions and advice. Then she can be cured. Interviewer: But, that particular medicine is the only way out. Babaji: There is no reason to necessarily think that that particular drug will save her life. Interviewer: Let’s suppose she can only be saved by that drug, or else she will die. Won’t he face lots of difficulties if his wife dies? Babaji: No. Interviewer: But his family will break up. Babaji: He can marry other women. Interviewer: But he has no money. How can he remarry? Babaji: Do you think he should steal? If he steals, he will be sent to jail. Then what’s the use of saving her life to keep the family together. She has enjoyed the days destined for her. But stealing is bad. Our sacred scriptures tell that sometimes stealing is an act of dharma. If by stealing for you I can save your life, then it is an act of dharma. But one cannot steal for his wife or his offspring or for himself. If he does that, it is simply stealing. Interviewer: If I steal for myself, then it’s a sin? Babaji: Yes. Interviewer: But in this case I am stealing for my wife, not for me. Babaji: But your wife is yours. Interviewer: Doesn’t Ashok have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? Babaji: He may not get the medicine by stealing. He may sell himself. He may sell himself to someone for say 500 rupees for six months or one year. ( Shweder & Much, 1987 , p. 236)

My inspiration for slicing the cake of qualitative interviewing in this manner comes from Talmy (2010) and Rapley (2001) , who builds on a distinction from Clive Seale between interview-data-as-resource and interview-data-as-topic.

Interviews as Research Instrument

Researchers working from the former perspective (corresponding to the left-hand side of Table 14.1 ) believe that interview data can reflect the interviewees’ reality outside the interview and consequently seek to minimize the interviewer’s effects on coloring interviewees’ reports of their everyday reality. The interview becomes a research instrument in the hands of interviewers, who are supposed to act receptively and interfere as little as possible with the interviewee reporting. The validity of the interviewees’ reports becomes a prime issue when one approaches interviewing as a research instrument. And because interviews normally concern things experienced in the past, this significantly involves considerations about human memory and about how to enhance the trustworthiness of human recollections.

In one of the few publications to discuss the role of memory in interviewing, Thomsen and Brinkmann (2009) recommend that interviewers take the following points into account if they want to help interviewees’ improve the reporting and description of specific memories:

Allow time for recall and assure the interviewee that this is normal.

Provide concrete cues; for example, “the last time you were talking to a physician/nurse” rather than “a communication experience.”

Use typical content categories of specific memories to derive cues (i.e., ongoing activity, location, persons, other people’s affect and own affect).

Ask for recent specific memories.

Use relevant extended time line and landmark events as contextual cues; such as “when you were working at x” to aid the recall of older memories.

Ask the interviewee for a free and detailed narrative of the specific memory (adapted from Thomsen & Brinkmann, 2009 ).

Following such guidelines results in interviewee descriptions that are valid (they are about what the researcher intends them to be about) and close to the “lived experience” of something, or what was earlier referred to as “life world phenomena.” Although phenomenology is one typical paradigm to frame interviews analytically as research instruments, many other paradigms do so as well, for example grounded theory, developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) with the intent of developing theoretical understandings of phenomena grounded in empirical materials through meticulous coding of data.

A typical goal of qualitative analysis within a broad phenomenological perspective is to arrive at an understanding of the essential structures of conscious experience. Analysts can here apply an inductive form of analysis known as meaning condensation ( Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008 , p. 205). This refers to an abridgement of the meanings articulated by the interviewees into briefer formulations. Longer utterances are condensed into shorter statements in which the main sense of what is said is rephrased in a few words. This technique rests on the idea in phenomenology that there is a certain essential structure to the way we experience things in the life world, and this constitutes an experience as an experience of a given something (shame, anxiety, love, learning something new, etc.).

A specific approach to phenomenological analysis has been developed in a psychological context by Amedeo Giorgi (e.g., Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003 ). Giorgi breaks the analytic process down into four steps: (1) obtain a concrete description of a phenomenon (through an interview) as lived through by someone; read the description carefully and become familiar with it to get a sense of the whole, (2) establish meaning units in the description, (3) transform each meaning unit into expressions that communicate the psychological sense of the data, and (4) based on the transformed meaning units, articulate the general structure of the experience of the phenomenon (p. 170).

A large number of books exist on how to do a concrete analysis (e.g., Silverman, 2001 ), so I will refer the reader to these and also to relevant chapters of this handbook.

Interviewing as a Social Practice

In contrast to those approaches that see interviewing as a research instrument designed to capture the “what” of what is reported as accurately as possible, others working from more constructionist, localist, and situated perspectives have much greater analytic focus on the “how” of interviewing. They view interviewing as a social practice, as a site for a specific kind of situated interaction, which means that interview data primarily reflect “a reality constructed by the interviewee and interviewer” ( Rapley, 2001 , p. 304). The idea of obtaining valid reports that accurately reflect a reality outside the conversational situation is thus questioned, and the main challenge becomes instead how to explain the relevance of interview talk. That is, if what is said in an interview is a product of this social practice itself, why is it relevant to conduct interviewing? Postmodern interviews, emphasizing performative and transformative aspects of interviewing, attempt to meet this challenge by arguing that if interviews do not concern a reality outside themselves, they can instead be used to perform or facilitate social change.

People subscribing to the right-hand side of Table 14.1 believe that interview talk should be conceived of as accounts. Unlike reports, which refer to experiences from the interviewee’s past that can be articulated when prompted, accounts are answers that are “normatively oriented to and designed for the questions that occasion them” ( Talmy, 2010 , p. 136). If interviewee talk is best understood as accounts, it must be seen as a kind of social action that has effects and does something in the situation of which it is a part. This perspective on interviewing is shared by some discourse and conversation analysts who limit themselves to analyzing interview talk as situated interaction.

Readers may wonder if these approaches are mutually exclusive. My own pragmatic answer is that they are not, but that none of the approaches should be brought to an extreme: it is true that huge problems are associated with viewing the interview as a site for pure, “unpolluted” reports of the past (we know too much about the constructive role of human memory and of how the social practice of interviewing mediates what is said to take this seriously). But it is also true that there are problems associated with denying that we can use our communicative powers to refer more or less accurately to past experiences. Those who follow the right-hand side of Table 14.1 to the extreme and deny that data can be resources for understanding experiences of the past still believe that their own communicative practice, materialized in their texts, are about matters outside this specific text. So, taken to extremes, both approaches become absurd, and I believe that it is now time for the two (sometimes opposed) camps to learn from one another and realize that they need not exclude one another. In my view, some of the most interesting interview studies are those in which analyses of the “what” and the “how” fertilize each other in productive ways. I end this chapter with a brief illustration of this, taken (rather shamelessly!) from a paper co-authored by myself ( Musaeus & Brinkmann, 2011 ) that shows how an analytic look at interviews can employ perspectives from both sides at the same time. The two forms thus need not exclude each other, and some interviews can favorably be analyzed using a combination of the two broad analytic approaches.

First a little contextualization to render the example meaningful: my colleague, Peter Musaeus, conducted in their home a relatively unstructured group qualitative interview with four members of a family that was receiving family therapy. We were interested in understanding the effects of the therapeutic process on the everyday life of the family. In the excerpt in Box 14.3 , we meet Maren and Søren, a married couple, and Maren’s daughter Kirstina, who was thirteen years old at the time (and we also see the interviewer’s voice). 4 In the following extract, Maren (the mother) has just made a joke about the movie The Planet of the Apes (a science-fiction movie telling the story of how apes are in control of the earth and keep humans as pets or slaves), and they have talked about the scene where the apes jokingly remark that females are cute, just as long as you get rid of them before puberty.

Toward the end of this sequence Søren, the father of the family, denies—as he does throughout the interview—that Maren is hitting her daughter, and he uses what the family calls a “stop sign” (line 17), which they were taught to employ in their therapy sessions. The verbal sign “STOP” (said in a loud voice) is supposed to bring the conflict cycle to a halt before it accelerates. In the interview, however, the stop sign (like other similar signs from therapy that have been appropriated by the family members) sometimes function counter-productively to raise the conflict level because it is almost shouted by family members. The sudden question in line 20 is actually much more effective in defusing the conflict by diverting the participants’ attention from the problem.

I have here just provided a glimpse of our analysis, which tries to bring forth the role of semiotic mediation—the use of signs (like the stop sign and other therapeutic tools)—in regulating social interaction in a troubled family. The point is, however, that the interview both contains family members’ descriptions of their problems and challenges, thus giving us their reports of what they experience; but we also see the persons’ shared past being formative of the present in the interview situation itself, resulting in quite significant accounts occasioned by the social episode itself. In short, the two analytic perspectives on interviewing (both as a resource providing reports and also as a topic in its own right, i.e., a social practice providing accounts) are mutually reinforcing in this case and have given us what we (as authors of the paper) believe is a valid analysis. Rather than just hearing people describing their problems, the interviewer is in fact witnessing the family members’ problems as they play out in their interaction, in front of him so to speak, thus offering him a chance to validate his analysis. The “what” and the “how” here intersect very closely.

Maren: And the comment that followed was: “Get rid of it before... ha, ha = “

Interviewer: Before it becomes a teenager?

Maren: Because it simply is so hard.

Interviewer: Yes, right, but it =

Kirstina: Should you also simply get rid of me?

Interviewer: Ha, ha.

Maren: No, are you crazy, I love you more than anything. But it’s really hard

for all of us sometimes, I think.

Kirstina: Are you also in puberty when you hit me?

Maren: No, I am in the menopause, that is different.

Søren: You don’t hit, do you? You say “when you hit”? Your mother doesn’t

Kirstina: She has hit me today and yesterday.

Maren: I probably did hit her but well =

Kirstina: Yes, but still, you may say that it isn’t hitting, when you miss.

Søren: STOP Kirstina, it isn’t true. Your mother hasn’t hit you and you don’t

Kirstina: No, no let’s just say that.

Maren: Does anyone want a cream roll?

In this chapter, I have given a broad introduction to qualitative interviewing. I have tried to demonstrate that the human world is a conversational reality in which interviewing takes a privileged position as a research method, at least in relation to a number of significant research questions that human and social scientists want to ask. Qualitative interviewing can be both a useful and valid approach, resulting in analyses with a certain objectivity in the sense that I introduced earlier. Throughout the chapter, I have kept a focus on interviewing as a social practice that has a cultural history, and I have warned against unreflective naturalization of this kind of human interaction (i.e., viewing it as a particularly natural and unproblematic way of staging human relationships).

Furthermore, I introduced a number of distinctions that are relevant when mapping the field of qualitative interviewing (e.g., between different levels of structure, numbers of participants, media of interviewing, and also interviewer styles). I also provided a detailed presentation of semistructured life world interviewing as the standard form of qualitative interviewing today.

I finally gave particular attention to two broad analytic approaches to interviewing: on the one side, experience-focused interviewing that seek to elicit accurate reports of what interviewees have experienced (in broad terms, the phenomenological positions), and, on the other side, language- and interaction-focused interviewing (discourse-oriented positions) that focus on the nature of interview interaction in its own right. In my eyes, none of these is superior per se, but each enables researchers to pose different kinds of questions to their materials. Too often, however, interviewers forget to make clear what kinds of questions they are interested in and also forget to consider whether their practice of interviewing and their analytic focus enable them to answer their research questions satisfactorily.

Future Directions

In the future, the field of qualitative interviewing is likely to continue its expansion. It is now among the most popular research tools in the human and social sciences, and nothing indicates that this trend will stop. However, a number of issues confront qualitative interviewing as particularly pressing in my opinion:

Using conversations for research purposes is close to an everyday practice of oral communication. We talk to people to get to know them, which—in a trivial sense—is also the goal of qualitative research. Will the focus on interviewing as a “method” (that can be articulated and perhaps spelled out procedurally) be counterproductive when the goal is human communication and getting to know people? Are we witnessing a fetishization of methods in qualitative research that is blocking the road to knowledge? And are there other ways of thinking about interviews and other “qualitative methods” than in the idiom of “methods”?

Qualitative interviewers can now find publication channels for their work, but has the practice of interviewing become so unproblematic that people are forgetting to justify and theorize their means of knowledge production in concrete contexts? In my view, more work should be done to theorize interviewing as a social practice (the “how”), as essential to what goes on in interview interactions.

When reporting qualitative analyses, researchers too often decontextualize interviewee statements and utterances. What person A has said is juxtaposed with the statements of person B, without any contextual clues. If an interview is a form of situated interaction, then readers of interview reports need to be provided with temporal and situational context in order to be able to interpret the talk (What question was this statement an answer to? What happened before and what came after?).

Some qualitative researchers remain convinced that they are “on the good side” in relation to ethical questions. They “give voice” to individuals, listen to their “subjective accounts,” and are thus against the quantitative and “objectifying” approaches of other, more traditional researchers. However, qualitative interviewers should, in my view, be aware that very delicate ethical questions are an inherent part of interviewing. They should avoid the “qualitatative ethicism” that sometimes characterizes qualitative inquiry, viz. that “we are good because we are qualitative.” Especially in an “interview society,” there is a need to think about the ethical problems of interviewing others (often about intimate and personal matters), when people are often seduced by the warmth and interest of interviewers to say “too much.”

The first journalistic interviews appeared in the middle of the nineteenth century ( Silvester, 1993 ), and social science interviews emerged in the course of the twentieth century (see the history of interviewing recounted later in this chapter).

Obviously, these traditions are not identical, nor are their main concepts, but I believe that they here converge on the idea of a concretely lived and experienced social reality prior to scientific abstractions of it, which Husserl originally referred to as the life world and which remains central to most (if not all) paradigms in qualitative research.

Confronting interviews are sometimes misunderstood to imply a certain aggressive or disrespectful attitude, which, of course, is a misunderstanding. An interviewer can be actively and confrontingly curious and inquiring in a very respectful way, especially if she positions herself as not-knowing (ad modum Socrates in some of the dialogues) in order to avoid framing the interview as an oral examination.

Kirstina has an older sister, who no longer lives at home, and Søren is not the biological father of the girls. He has two children from a previous marriage. One of them has attempted suicide, which, however, is not the reason for the family’s referral to therapy. The reason, instead, is Maren’s violent behavior toward her daughter Kirstina.

Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E. , Levinson, D. J. , & Sanford, R. N. ( 1950 ). The authoritarian personality . New York: Norton.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Atkinson, P. ( 2002 ). The life story interview. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Atkinson, P. , & Silverman, D. ( 1997 ). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self.   Qualitative Inquiry , 3 , 304–325.

Bellah, R. N. , Madsen, R. , Sullivan, W. M. , Swidler, A. , & Tipton, S. M. ( 1985 ). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bogardus, E. M. ( 1924 ). Methods of interviewing.   Journal of Applied Sociology , 9 , 456–467.

Briggs, C. ( 2007 ). Anthropology, interviewing and communicability in contemporary society.   Current Anthropology , 48 , 551–567.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2007 a ). Could interviews be epistemic? An alternative to qualitative opinion-polling.   Qualitative Inquiry , 13 , 1116–1138.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2007 b ). The good qualitative researcher.   Qualitative Research in Psychology , 4 , 127–144.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2012 ). Qualitative inquiry in everyday life: Working with everyday life materials . London: Sage.

Brinkmann, S. , & Kvale, S. ( 2005 ). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research.   Journal of Constructivist Psychology , 18 , 157–181.

Butler, J. ( 2005 ). Giving an account of oneself . New York: Fordham University Press.

Chrzanowska, J. ( 2002 ). Interviewing groups and individuals in qualitative market research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clifford, J. , & Marcus, G. ( 1986 ). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Conrad, R. G. , & Schober, M. ( 2008 ). New frontiers in standardized survey interviewing. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods . (pp. 173–188). London: Guilford Press.

Dichter, E. ( 1960 ). The strategy of desire . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Dinkins, C. S. ( 2005 ). Shared inquiry: Socratic-Hermeneutic interpre-viewing. In P. Ironside (Ed.), Beyond method: Philosophical conversations in healthcare research and scholarship . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ellis, C. , Adams, T. E. , & Bochner, A. P. ( 2011 ). Autoethography: An overview.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 12 , Article 10- http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/1589/3095 .

Ellis, C. , & Berger, L. ( 2003 ). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns . (pp. 467–493). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Flick, U. ( 2002 ). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Flyvbjerg, B. ( 2001 ). Making social science matter—Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fontana, A. , & Prokos, A. H. ( 2007 ). The interview: From formal to postmodern . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Freud, S. ( 1963 ). Therapy and technique . New York: Collier.

Frosh, S. ( 2007 ). Disintegrating qualitative research.   Theory & Psychology , 17 , 635–653.

Giorgi, A. , & Giorgi, B. ( 2003 ). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In P. M. Camic , J. E. Rhodes , & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design . (pp. 243–273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. ( 1967 ). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Harré, R. ( 1983 ). Personal being . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hollway, W. , & Jefferson, T. ( 2000 ). Biography, anxiety and the experience of locality. In P. Chamberlayne , J. Bornat , & T. Wengraf (Eds.), The turn to biographical methods in social science . (pp. 167–180). London: Routledge.

Holstein, J. A. , & Gubrium, J. F. ( 1995 ). The Active Interview . London: Sage.

Husserl, E. ( 1954 ). Die krisis der europäischen wissenschaften und die tranzendentale phänomenologie . Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

Kinsey, A. C. , Pomeroy, W. B. , & Martin, C. E. ( 1948 ). Sexual behavior in the human male . Philadelphia: Saunders.

Kohlberg, L. ( 1981 ). Essays on moral development Vol. 1—The philosophy of moral development . San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.

Kvale, S. ( 2003 ). The psychoanalytical interview as inspiration for qualitative research. In P. M. Camic & J. E. Rhodes (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design . (pp. 275–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kvale, S. , & Brinkmann, S. ( 2008 ). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Latour, B. ( 2000 ). When things strike back: A possible contribution of “science studies” to the social sciences.   British Journal of Sociology , 50 , 107–123.

Lee, R. M. ( 2008 ). David Riesman and the sociology of the interview.   The Sociological Quarterly , 49 , 285–307.

Lee, R. M. ( 2011 ). “ The most important technique...”: Carl Rogers, Hawthorne, and the rise and fall of nondirective interviewing in sociology.   Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 47 , 123–146.

Lyotard, J. -F. ( 1984 ). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge . Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Maccoby, E. E. , & Maccoby, N. ( 1954 ). The interview: A tool of social science. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology . (pp. 449–487). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Mann, C. , & Stewart, F. ( 2002 ). Internet interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . (pp. 603–628). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mannheim, B. , & Tedlock, B. ( 1995 ). Introduction. In B. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (Eds.), The dialogic emergence of culture . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Markham, A. ( 2005 ). The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). (pp. 247–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayo, E. ( 1933 ). The social problems of an industrial civilization . New York: MacMillan.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/ 2002 ). Phenomenology of perception . London: Routledge.

Mishler, E. ( 1986 ). Research interviewing—Context and narrative . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morgan, D. L. ( 2002 ). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . (pp. 141–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mulhall, S. ( 2007 ). The conversation of humanity . Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Musaeus, P. , & Brinkmann, S. ( 2011 ). The semiosis of family conflict: A case study of home-based psychotherapy.   Culture & Psychology , 17 , 47–63.

Parker, I. ( 2005 ). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Piaget, J. ( 1930 ). The child’s conception of the world . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Piaget, J. (1932/ 1975 ). The moral judgment of the child . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Plato ( 1987 ). The republic . London: Penguin.

Platt, J. ( 2002 ). The history of the interview. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method . (pp. 33–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Potter, J. , & Wetherell, M. ( 1987 ). Discourse and social psychology . London: Sage.

Rapley, T. J. ( 2001 ). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews.   Qualitative Research , 1 , 303–323.

Reinharz, S. , & Chase, S. E. ( 2002 ). Interviewing women. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . (pp. 221–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riesman, D. M. , & Benney, M. ( 1956 ). The sociology of the interview.   Midwestern Sociologist , 18 , 3–15.

Roethlishberger, F. J. , & Dickson, W. J. ( 1939 ). Management and the worker . New York: Wiley.

Rogers, C. ( 1945 ). The Non-directive method as a technique for social research.   The American Journal of Sociology , 50 , 279–283.

Roulston, K. ( 2010 ). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Ryen, A. ( 2002 ). Cross-cultural interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . (pp. 335–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sarbin, T. R. ( 1986 ). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In T. R. Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct . (pp. 3–21). New York: Praeger.

Shotter, J. ( 1993 ). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language . London: Sage.

Shuy, R. W. ( 2002 ). In-person versus telephone interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . (pp. 537–555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shweder, R. A. , & Much, N. ( 1987 ). Determinations of meaning: Discourse and moral socialization. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development through social interaction . New York: Wiley.

Silverman, D. ( 2001 ). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Silvester, E. ( 1993 ). The penguin book of interviews . London: Penguin.

Skårderud, F. ( 2003 ). Sh@me in cyberspace. Relationships without faces: The e-media and eating disorders.   European Eating Disorders Review , 11 , 155–169.

Smith, L. T. ( 1999 ). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people . London: Zed Books.

Sorsoli, L. & Tolman, D. L. ( 2008 ). Hearing voices: Listening for multiplicity and movement in interview data. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods . (pp. 495–515). London: Guilford Press.

Spradley, J. ( 1979 ). The ethnographic interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Talmy, S. ( 2010 ). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice.   Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 30 , 128–148.

Tanggaard, L. ( 2007 ). The research interview as discourses crossing swords.   Qualitative Inquiry , 13 , 160–176.

Taylor, C. ( 1989 ). Sources of the self . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomsen, D. K. , & Brinkmann, S. ( 2009 ). An interviewer’s guide to autobiographical memory: Ways to elicit concrete experiences and to avoid pitfalls in interpreting them.   Qualitative Research in Psychology , 6 , 294–312.

Trevarthen, C. ( 1993 ). The self born in intersubjectivity: The psychology of an infant communicating. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The perceived self . (pp. 121–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Valsiner, J. ( 2007 ). Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology . New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Warren, C. A. B. ( 2002 ). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . (pp. 83–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wengraf, T. ( 2001 ). Qualitative research interviewing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Structured vs. unstructured interviews: A complete guide

Last updated

7 March 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

Interviews can help you understand the context of a subject, eyewitness accounts of an event, people's perceptions of a product, and more.

In some instances, semi-structured or unstructured interviews can be more helpful; in others, structured interviews are the right choice to obtain the information you seek.

In some cases, structured interviews can save time, making your research more efficient. Let’s dive into everything you need to know about structured interviews.

Analyze all kinds of interviews

Bring all your interviews into one place to analyze and understand

• What are structured interviews?

Structured interviews are also known as standardized interviews, patterned interviews, or planned interviews. They’re a research instrument that uses a standard sequence of questions to collect information about the research subject. 

Often, you’ll use structured interviews when you need data that’s easy to categorize and quantify for a statistical analysis of responses.

Structured interviews are incredibly effective at helping researchers identify patterns and trends in response data. They’re great at minimizing the time and resources necessary for data collection and analysis.

What types of questions suit structured interviews?

Often, researchers use structured interviews for quantitative research . In these cases, they usually employ close-ended questions. 

Close-ended questions have a fixed set of responses from which the interviewer can choose. Because of the limited response selection set, response data from close-ended questions is easy to aggregate and analyze.

Researchers often employ multiple-choice or dichotomous close-ended questions in interviews. 

For multiple-choice questions, interviewees may choose between three or more possible answers. The interviewer will often restrict the response to four or five possible options. An interviewee will likely need help recalling more, which can slow down and complicate the interview process. 

For dichotomous questions, the interviewee may choose between two possible options. Yes or no and true or false questions are examples of dichotomous questions.

Open-ended questions are common in structured interviews. However, researchers use them when conducting qualitative research and looking for in-depth information about the interviewee's perceptions or experiences. 

These questions take longer for the interviewee to answer, and the answers take longer for the researcher to analyze. There's also a higher possibility of the researcher collecting irrelevant data. However, open-ended questions are more effective than close-ended questions in gathering in-depth information.

Sometimes, researchers use structured interviews in qualitative research. In this case, the research instrument contains open-ended questions in the same sequence. This usage is less common because it can be hard to compare feedback, especially with large sample sizes.

• What types of structured interviews are there?

Researchers conduct structured interviews face-to-face, via telephone or videoconference, or through a survey instrument. 

Face-to-face interviews help researchers collect data and gather more detailed information. They can collect and analyze facial expressions, body language, tone, and inflection easier than they might through other interview methods . 

However, face-to-face interviews are the most resource-intensive to arrange. You'll likely need to assume travel and other related logistical costs for a face-to-face interview. 

These interviews also take more time and are more vulnerable to bias than some other formats. For these reasons, face-to-face interviews are best with a small sample size.

You can conduct interviews via an audio or video call. They are less resource-intensive than face-to-face interviews and can use a larger sample size. 

However, it can be difficult for the interviewer to engage effectively with the interviewee within this format, which can inject bias or ambiguity into the responses. This is particularly true for audio calls, especially if the interviewer and interviewee have not met before the interview. 

A video call can help the interviewer capture some data from body language and facial expressions, but less so than in a face-to-face interview. Technical issues are another thing to consider. If you’re studying a group of people that live in an area with limited Internet connectivity, this can make a video call challenging.

Survey questionnaires mirror the essential elements of structured interviews by containing a consistent sequence of standard questions. Surveys in quantitative research usually include close-ended questions. This data collection method can be beneficial if you need feedback from a large sample size.

Surveys are resource-efficient from a data administration standpoint but are more limited in the data they can gather. Further, if a survey question is ambiguous, you can’t clear up the ambiguity before someone responds. 

By contrast, in a face-to-face or tele-interview, an interviewee may ask clarifying questions or exhibit confusion when asked an unclear question, allowing the interviewer to clarify.

• What are some common examples of structured interviews?

Structured interviews are relevant in many fields. You can find structured interviews in human resources, marketing, political science, psychology, and more. 

Academic and applied researchers commonly use them to verify insights from analyzing academic literature or responses from other interview types.

However, one of the most common structured interview applications lies outside the research realm: Human resource professionals and hiring managers commonly use these interviews to hire employees.

A hiring manager can easily compare responses and whittle down the applicant pool by posing a standard set of closed-ended interview questions to multiple applicants. 

Further, standard close-ended or open-ended questions can reduce bias and add objectivity and credibility to the hiring process.

Structured interviews are common in political polling. Candidates and political parties may conduct structured interviews with relatively small voter groups to obtain feedback. They ask questions about issues, messaging, and voting intentions to craft policies and campaigns.

• What do you need to conduct a structured interview?

The tools you need to conduct a structured interview vary by format. But fundamentally, you will need: 

A participant

An interviewer

A pen and pad (or other note-taking tools)

A recording device

A consent form

A list of interview questions

While some interviewees may express qualms about you recording the interview, it’s challenging to conduct quality interviews while taking detailed notes. Even if you have a note-taker in the room, note-taking may introduce bias and can’t capture body language or facial expressions. 

Depending on the nature of your study, others may wish to review your sources. If they call your conclusions into question, audio recordings are additional evidence in your favor.

To record, you should ask the interviewee to sign a consent form. Check with your employer's legal counsel or institutional review board at your academic institution for guidance about obtaining consent legally in your state. 

If you're conducting a face-to-face interview, a camcorder, digital camera, or even some smartphones are sufficient for recording.

For a tele-interview, you'll find that today's leading video conferencing software applications feature a convenient recording function for data collection.

If a survey is your method of choice, you'll need the survey and a distribution and collection method. Online survey software applications allow you to create surveys by inputting the questions and distributing your survey via text or email. 

In some cases, survey companies even offer packages in which they will call those who do not respond via email or text and conduct the survey over the phone.

• How to conduct a structured interview

If you're planning a face-to-face interview, you'll need to take a few steps to do it efficiently. 

First, prepare your questions and double-check that the structured interview format is best for your study. Make sure that they are neutral, unbiased, and close-ended. Ask a friend or colleague to test your questions pre-interview to ensure they are clear and straightforward.

Choose the setting for your interviews. Ideally, you'll select a location that is easy to get to. If you live in a city, consider addresses accessible via public transportation. 

The room where your interview takes place should be comfortable, without distraction, and quiet, so your recording device clearly captures your interviewee's audio.

If you're looking to interview people with specific characteristics, you'll need to recruit them. Some companies specialize in interview recruitment. You provide the attributes you need, and they identify a pool of candidates for a fee. Alternatively, you can advertise to participants on social media and other relevant avenues. 

If you're looking for college students in a specific region, look at student newspaper ads or affiliated social media pages. 

You'll also want to incentivize participation, as recruiting interview respondents without compensation is exceedingly difficult. It’s best to include a line or two about requiring written consent for participation and how you’ll use the interview audio.

When you have an interview participant, discuss the intent of your research and acquire their consent. Ensure your recording tools are working well, and begin your interview. 

Don't rely on the recordings alone: Note the most significant insights from your participant, as you could easily forget them when it's time to analyze your data.

You'll want to transcribe your audio at the data analysis stage. Some recording applications use AI to generate transcripts. Remove filler words and other sounds to generate a clear transcript for the best results. 

A written transcript will help you analyze data and pull quotes from your audio to include in your final research paper.

• What are other common types of interviews?

Typically, you'll find researchers using at least one of these other common interview types:

Semi-structured interviews

As the name suggests, semi-structured interviews include some elements of a structured interview. You’ll include preplanned questions, but you can deviate from those questions to explore the interviewee's answers in greater depth.

Typically, a researcher will conduct a semi-structured interview with preplanned questions and an interview guide. The guide will include topics and potential questions to ask. Sometimes, the guide may also include areas or questions to avoid asking.

Unstructured interviews

In an unstructured interview , the researchers approach the interview subjects without predetermined questions. Researchers often use this qualitative instrument to probe into personal experiences and testimony, typically toward the beginning of a research study. 

Often, you’ll validate the insights you gather during unstructured and semi-structured interviews with structured interviews, surveys, and similar quantitative research tools.

Focus group interviews

Focus group interviews differ from the other three types of interviews as you pose the questions to a small group. Focus groups are typically either structured or semi-structured. When researchers employ structured interview questions, they are typically confident in the areas they wish to explore. 

Semi-structured interviews are perfect for a researcher seeking to explore broad issues. However, you must be careful that unplanned questions are unambiguous and neutral. Otherwise, you could wind up with biased results.

What is a structured vs. an unstructured interview?

A structured interview consists of standard preplanned questions for data collection. These questions may be close-ended, open-ended, or a combination. 

By contrast, an unstructured interview includes unplanned questions. In these interviews, you’ll usually equip facilitators with an interview guide. This includes guidelines for asking questions and samples that can help them ask relevant questions.

What are the advantages of a structured interview?

Relative to other interview formats, a structured interview is usually more time-efficient. With a preplanned set of questions, your interview is less likely to go into tangents, especially if you use close-ended questions. 

The more structure you provide to the interview, the more likely you are to generate responses that are easy to analyze. By contrast, an unstructured interview may involve a freewheeling conversation with off-topic and irrelevant feedback that lasts a long time.

What is an example of a structured question?

A structured question is any question you ask in an interview that you’ve preplanned and standardized.

For example, if you conduct five interviews and the first question you ask each one is, "Do you believe the world is round, yes or no?" you have asked them a structured question. This is also a close-ended dichotomous question.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

The Interview Method In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Interviews involve a conversation with a purpose, but have some distinct features compared to ordinary conversation, such as being scheduled in advance, having an asymmetry in outcome goals between interviewer and interviewee, and often following a question-answer format.

Interviews are different from questionnaires as they involve social interaction. Unlike questionnaire methods, researchers need training in interviewing (which costs money).

How Do Interviews Work?

Researchers can ask different types of questions, generating different types of data . For example, closed questions provide people with a fixed set of responses, whereas open questions allow people to express what they think in their own words.

The researcher will often record interviews, and the data will be written up as a transcript (a written account of interview questions and answers) which can be analyzed later.

It should be noted that interviews may not be the best method for researching sensitive topics (e.g., truancy in schools, discrimination, etc.) as people may feel more comfortable completing a questionnaire in private.

There are different types of interviews, with a key distinction being the extent of structure. Semi-structured is most common in psychology research. Unstructured interviews have a free-flowing style, while structured interviews involve preset questions asked in a particular order.

Structured Interview

A structured interview is a quantitative research method where the interviewer a set of prepared closed-ended questions in the form of an interview schedule, which he/she reads out exactly as worded.

Interviews schedules have a standardized format, meaning the same questions are asked to each interviewee in the same order (see Fig. 1).

   Figure 1. An example of an interview schedule

The interviewer will not deviate from the interview schedule (except to clarify the meaning of the question) or probe beyond the answers received.  Replies are recorded on a questionnaire, and the order and wording of questions, and sometimes the range of alternative answers, is preset by the researcher.

A structured interview is also known as a formal interview (like a job interview).

• Structured interviews are easy to replicate as a fixed set of closed questions are used, which are easy to quantify – this means it is easy to test for reliability .
• Structured interviews are fairly quick to conduct which means that many interviews can take place within a short amount of time. This means a large sample can be obtained, resulting in the findings being representative and having the ability to be generalized to a large population.

Limitations

• Structured interviews are not flexible. This means new questions cannot be asked impromptu (i.e., during the interview), as an interview schedule must be followed.
• The answers from structured interviews lack detail as only closed questions are asked, which generates quantitative data . This means a researcher won’t know why a person behaves a certain way.

Unstructured Interview

Unstructured interviews do not use any set questions, instead, the interviewer asks open-ended questions based on a specific research topic, and will try to let the interview flow like a natural conversation. The interviewer modifies his or her questions to suit the candidate’s specific experiences.

Unstructured interviews are sometimes referred to as ‘discovery interviews’ and are more like a ‘guided conservation’ than a strictly structured interview. They are sometimes called informal interviews.

Unstructured interviews are most useful in qualitative research to analyze attitudes and values. Though they rarely provide a valid basis for generalization, their main advantage is that they enable the researcher to probe social actors’ subjective points of view.

Interviewer Self-Disclosure

Interviewer self-disclosure involves the interviewer revealing personal information or opinions during the research interview. This may increase rapport but risks changing dynamics away from a focus on facilitating the interviewee’s account.

In unstructured interviews, the informal conversational style may deliberately include elements of interviewer self-disclosure, mirroring ordinary conversation dynamics.

Interviewer self-disclosure risks changing the dynamics away from facilitation of interviewee accounts. It should not be ruled out entirely but requires skillful handling informed by reflection.

• An informal interviewing style with some interviewer self-disclosure may increase rapport and participant openness. However, it also increases the chance of the participant converging opinions with the interviewer.
• Complete interviewer neutrality is unlikely. However, excessive informality and self-disclosure risk the interview becoming more of an ordinary conversation and producing consensus accounts.
• Overly personal disclosures could also be seen as irrelevant and intrusive by participants. They may invite increased intimacy on uncomfortable topics.
• The safest approach seems to be to avoid interviewer self-disclosures in most cases. Where an informal style is used, disclosures require careful judgment and substantial interviewing experience.
• If asked for personal opinions during an interview, the interviewer could highlight the defined roles and defer that discussion until after the interview.
• Unstructured interviews are more flexible as questions can be adapted and changed depending on the respondents’ answers. The interview can deviate from the interview schedule.
• Unstructured interviews generate qualitative data through the use of open questions. This allows the respondent to talk in some depth, choosing their own words. This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation.
• They also have increased validity because it gives the interviewer the opportunity to probe for a deeper understanding, ask for clarification & allow the interviewee to steer the direction of the interview, etc. Interviewers have the chance to clarify any questions of participants during the interview.
• It can be time-consuming to conduct an unstructured interview and analyze the qualitative data (using methods such as thematic analysis).
• Employing and training interviewers is expensive and not as cheap as collecting data via questionnaires . For example, certain skills may be needed by the interviewer. These include the ability to establish rapport and knowing when to probe.
• Interviews inevitably co-construct data through researchers’ agenda-setting and question-framing. Techniques like open questions provide only limited remedies.

Focus Group Interview

Focus group interview is a qualitative approach where a group of respondents are interviewed together, used to gain an in‐depth understanding of social issues.

This type of interview is often referred to as a focus group because the job of the interviewer ( or moderator ) is to bring the group to focus on the issue at hand. Initially, the goal was to reach a consensus among the group, but with the development of techniques for analyzing group qualitative data, there is less emphasis on consensus building.

The method aims to obtain data from a purposely selected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population.

The role of the interview moderator is to make sure the group interacts with each other and do not drift off-topic. Ideally, the moderator will be similar to the participants in terms of appearance, have adequate knowledge of the topic being discussed, and exercise mild unobtrusive control over dominant talkers and shy participants.

A researcher must be highly skilled to conduct a focus group interview. For example, the moderator may need certain skills, including the ability to establish rapport and know when to probe.

• Group interviews generate qualitative narrative data through the use of open questions. This allows the respondents to talk in some depth, choosing their own words. This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation. Qualitative data also includes observational data, such as body language and facial expressions.
• Group responses are helpful when you want to elicit perspectives on a collective experience, encourage diversity of thought, reduce researcher bias, and gather a wider range of contextualized views.
• They also have increased validity because some participants may feel more comfortable being with others as they are used to talking in groups in real life (i.e., it’s more natural).
• When participants have common experiences, focus groups allow them to build on each other’s comments to provide richer contextual data representing a wider range of views than individual interviews.
• Focus groups are a type of group interview method used in market research and consumer psychology that are cost – effective for gathering the views of consumers .
• The researcher must ensure that they keep all the interviewees” details confidential and respect their privacy. This is difficult when using a group interview. For example, the researcher cannot guarantee that the other people in the group will keep information private.
• Group interviews are less reliable as they use open questions and may deviate from the interview schedule, making them difficult to repeat.
• It is important to note that there are some potential pitfalls of focus groups, such as conformity, social desirability, and oppositional behavior, that can reduce the usefulness of the data collected.

For example, group interviews may sometimes lack validity as participants may lie to impress the other group members. They may conform to peer pressure and give false answers.

To avoid these pitfalls, the interviewer needs to have a good understanding of how people function in groups as well as how to lead the group in a productive discussion.

Semi-Structured Interview

Semi-structured interviews lie between structured and unstructured interviews. The interviewer prepares a set of same questions to be answered by all interviewees. Additional questions might be asked during the interview to clarify or expand certain issues.

In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer has more freedom to digress and probe beyond the answers. The interview guide contains a list of questions and topics that need to be covered during the conversation, usually in a particular order.

Semi-structured interviews are most useful to address the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ research questions. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses can be performed on data collected during semi-structured interviews.

• Semi-structured interviews allow respondents to answer more on their terms in an informal setting yet provide uniform information making them ideal for qualitative analysis.
• The flexible nature of semi-structured interviews allows ideas to be introduced and explored during the interview based on the respondents’ answers.
• Semi-structured interviews can provide reliable and comparable qualitative data. Allows the interviewer to probe answers, where the interviewee is asked to clarify or expand on the answers provided.
• The data generated remain fundamentally shaped by the interview context itself. Analysis rarely acknowledges this endemic co-construction.
• They are more time-consuming (to conduct, transcribe, and analyze) than structured interviews.
• The quality of findings is more dependent on the individual skills of the interviewer than in structured interviews. Skill is required to probe effectively while avoiding biasing responses.

The Interviewer Effect

Face-to-face interviews raise methodological problems. These stem from the fact that interviewers are themselves role players, and their perceived status may influence the replies of the respondents.

Because an interview is a social interaction, the interviewer’s appearance or behavior may influence the respondent’s answers. This is a problem as it can bias the results of the study and make them invalid.

For example, the gender, ethnicity, body language, age, and social status of the interview can all create an interviewer effect. If there is a perceived status disparity between the interviewer and the interviewee, the results of interviews have to be interpreted with care. This is pertinent for sensitive topics such as health.

For example, if a researcher was investigating sexism amongst males, would a female interview be preferable to a male? It is possible that if a female interviewer was used, male participants might lie (i.e., pretend they are not sexist) to impress the interviewer, thus creating an interviewer effect.

Flooding interviews with researcher’s agenda

The interactional nature of interviews means the researcher fundamentally shapes the discourse, rather than just neutrally collecting it. This shapes what is talked about and how participants can respond.

• The interviewer’s assumptions, interests, and categories don’t just shape the specific interview questions asked. They also shape the framing, task instructions, recruitment, and ongoing responses/prompts.
• This flooding of the interview interaction with the researcher’s agenda makes it very difficult to separate out what comes from the participant vs. what is aligned with the interviewer’s concerns.
• So the participant’s talk ends up being fundamentally shaped by the interviewer rather than being a more natural reflection of the participant’s own orientations or practices.
• This effect is hard to avoid because interviews inherently involve the researcher setting an agenda. But it does mean the talk extracted may say more about the interview process than the reality it is supposed to reflect.

Interview Design

First, you must choose whether to use a structured or non-structured interview.

Characteristics of Interviewers

Next, you must consider who will be the interviewer, and this will depend on what type of person is being interviewed. There are several variables to consider:

• Gender and age : This can greatly affect respondents’ answers, particularly on personal issues.
• Personal characteristics : Some people are easier to get on with than others. Also, the interviewer’s accent and appearance (e.g., clothing) can affect the rapport between the interviewer and interviewee.
• Language : The interviewer’s language should be appropriate to the vocabulary of the group of people being studied. For example, the researcher must change the questions’ language to match the respondents’ social background” age / educational level / social class/ethnicity, etc.
• Ethnicity : People may have difficulty interviewing people from different ethnic groups.
• Interviewer expertise should match research sensitivity – inexperienced students should avoid interviewing highly vulnerable groups.

Interview Location

The location of a research interview can influence the way in which the interviewer and interviewee relate and may exaggerate a power dynamic in one direction or another. It is usual to offer interviewees a choice of location as part of facilitating their comfort and encouraging participation.

However, the safety of the interviewer is an overriding consideration and, as mentioned, a minimal requirement should be that a responsible person knows where the interviewer has gone and when they are due back.

Remote Interviews

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote interviewing for research continuity. However online interview platforms provide increased flexibility even under normal conditions.

They enable access to participant groups across geographical distances without travel costs or arrangements. Online interviews can be efficiently scheduled to align with researcher and interviewee availability.

There are practical considerations in setting up remote interviews. Interviewees require access to internet and an online platform such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams or Skype through which to connect.

Certain modifications help build initial rapport in the remote format. Allowing time at the start of the interview for casual conversation while testing audio/video quality helps participants settle in. Minor delays can disrupt turn-taking flow, so alerting participants to speak slightly slower than usual minimizes accidental interruptions.

Keeping remote interviews under an hour avoids fatigue for stare at a screen. Seeking advanced ethical clearance for verbal consent at the interview start saves participant time. Adapting to the remote context shows care for interviewees and aids rich discussion.

However, it remains important to critically reflect on how removing in-person dynamics may shape the co-created data. Perhaps some nuances of trust and disclosure differ over video.

Vulnerable Groups

The interviewer must ensure that they take special care when interviewing vulnerable groups, such as children. For example, children have a limited attention span, so lengthy interviews should be avoided.

Developing an Interview Schedule

An interview schedule is a list of pre-planned, structured questions that have been prepared, to serve as a guide for interviewers, researchers and investigators in collecting information or data about a specific topic or issue.

• List the key themes or topics that must be covered to address your research questions. This will form the basic content.
• Organize the content logically, such as chronologically following the interviewee’s experiences. Place more sensitive topics later in the interview.
• Develop the list of content into actual questions and prompts. Carefully word each question – keep them open-ended, non-leading, and focused on examples.
• Add prompts to remind you to cover areas of interest.
• Pilot test the interview schedule to check it generates useful data and revise as needed.
• Be prepared to refine the schedule throughout data collection as you learn which questions work better.
• Practice skills like asking follow-up questions to get depth and detail. Stay flexible to depart from the schedule when needed.
• Keep questions brief and clear. Avoid multi-part questions that risk confusing interviewees.
• Listen actively during interviews to determine which pre-planned questions can be skipped based on information the participant has already provided.

The key is balancing preparation with the flexibility to adapt questions based on each interview interaction. With practice, you’ll gain skills to conduct productive interviews that obtain rich qualitative data.

The Power of Silence

Strategic use of silence is a key technique to generate interviewee-led data, but it requires judgment about appropriate timing and duration to maintain mutual understanding.

• Unlike ordinary conversation, the interviewer aims to facilitate the interviewee’s contribution without interrupting. This often means resisting the urge to speak at the end of the interviewee’s turn construction units (TCUs).
• Leaving a silence after a TCU encourages the interviewee to provide more material without being led by the interviewer. However, this simple technique requires confidence, as silence can feel socially awkward.
• Allowing longer silences (e.g. 24 seconds) later in interviews can work well, but early on even short silences may disrupt rapport if they cause misalignment between speakers.
• Silence also allows interviewees time to think before answering. Rushing to re-ask or amend questions can limit responses.
• Blunt backchannels like “mm hm” also avoid interrupting flow. Interruptions, especially to finish an interviewee’s turn, are problematic as they make the ownership of perspectives unclear.
• If interviewers incorrectly complete turns, an upside is it can produce extended interviewee narratives correcting the record. However, silence would have been better to let interviewees shape their own accounts.

Recording & Transcription

Design choices.

Design choices around recording and engaging closely with transcripts influence analytic insights, as well as practical feasibility. Weighing up relevant tradeoffs is key.

• Audio recording is standard, but video better captures contextual details, which is useful for some topics/analysis approaches. Participants may find video invasive for sensitive research.
• Digital formats enable the sharing of anonymized clips. Additional microphones reduce audio issues.
• Doing all transcription is time-consuming. Outsourcing can save researcher effort but needs confidentiality assurances. Always carefully check outsourced transcripts.
• Online platform auto-captioning can facilitate rapid analysis, but accuracy limitations mean full transcripts remain ideal. Software cleans up caption file formatting.
• Verbatim transcripts best capture nuanced meaning, but the level of detail needed depends on the analysis approach. Referring back to recordings is still advisable during analysis.
• Transcripts versus recordings highlight different interaction elements. Transcripts make overt disagreements clearer through the wording itself. Recordings better convey tone affiliativeness.

Transcribing Interviews & Focus Groups

Here are the steps for transcribing interviews:

• Play back audio/video files to develop an overall understanding of the interview
• Format the transcription document:
• Add line numbers
• Separate interviewer questions and interviewee responses
• Use formatting like bold, italics, etc. to highlight key passages
• Provide sentence-level clarity in the interviewee’s responses while preserving their authentic voice and word choices
• Break longer passages into smaller paragraphs to help with coding
• If translating the interview to another language, use qualified translators and back-translate where possible
• Select a notation system to indicate pauses, emphasis, laughter, interruptions, etc., and adapt it as needed for your data
• Insert screenshots, photos, or documents discussed in the interview at the relevant point in the transcript
• Read through multiple times, revising formatting and notations
• Double-check the accuracy of transcription against audio/videos
• De-identify transcript by removing identifying participant details

The goal is to produce a formatted written record of the verbal interview exchange that captures the meaning and highlights important passages ready for the coding process. Careful transcription is the vital first step in analysis.

Coding Transcripts

The goal of transcription and coding is to systematically transform interview responses into a set of codes and themes that capture key concepts, experiences and beliefs expressed by participants. Taking care with transcription and coding procedures enhances the validity of qualitative analysis .

• Read through the transcript multiple times to become immersed in the details
• Identify manifest/obvious codes and latent/underlying meaning codes
• Highlight insightful participant quotes that capture key concepts (in vivo codes)
• Create a codebook to organize and define codes with examples
• Use an iterative cycle of inductive (data-driven) coding and deductive (theory-driven) coding
• Refine codebook with clear definitions and examples as you code more transcripts
• Collaborate with other coders to establish the reliability of codes

Ethical Issues

Informed consent.

The participant information sheet must give potential interviewees a good idea of what is involved if taking part in the research.

This will include the general topics covered in the interview, where the interview might take place, how long it is expected to last, how it will be recorded, the ways in which participants’ anonymity will be managed, and incentives offered.

It might be considered good practice to consider true informed consent in interview research to require two distinguishable stages:

• Consent to undertake and record the interview and
• Consent to use the material in research after the interview has been conducted and the content known, or even after the interviewee has seen a copy of the transcript and has had a chance to remove sections, if desired.

Power and Vulnerability

• Early feminist views that sensitivity could equalize power differences are likely naive. The interviewer and interviewee inhabit different knowledge spheres and social categories, indicating structural disparities.
• Power fluctuates within interviews. Researchers rely on participation, yet interviewees control openness and can undermine data collection. Assumptions should be avoided.
• Interviews on sensitive topics may feel like quasi-counseling. Interviewers must refrain from dual roles, instead supplying support service details to all participants.
• Interviewees recruited for trauma experiences may reveal more than anticipated. While generating analytic insights, this risks leaving them feeling exposed.
• Ultimately, power balances resist reconciliation. But reflexively analyzing operations of power serves to qualify rather than nullify situtated qualitative accounts.

Some groups, like those with mental health issues, extreme views, or criminal backgrounds, risk being discredited – treated skeptically by researchers.

This creates tensions with qualitative approaches, often having an empathetic ethos seeking to center subjective perspectives. Analysis should balance openness to offered accounts with critically examining stakes and motivations behind them.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities.  Qualitative research in Psychology ,  2 (4), 281-307.

Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire . Cambridge University Press

Madill, A. (2011). Interaction in the semi-structured interview: A comparative analysis of the use of and response to indirect complaints. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8 (4), 333–353.

Maryudi, A., & Fisher, M. (2020). The power in the interview: A practical guide for identifying the critical role of actor interests in environment research. Forest and Society, 4 (1), 142–150

O’Key, V., Hugh-Jones, S., & Madill, A. (2009). Recruiting and engaging with people in deprived locales: Interviewing families about their eating patterns. Social Psychological Review, 11 (20), 30–35.

Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice . Sage.

Schaeffer, N. C. (1991). Conversation with a purpose— Or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, & N. A. Mathiowetz (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367–391). Wiley.

Silverman, D. (1973). Interview talk: Bringing off a research instrument. Sociology, 7 (1), 31–48.

Semi-Structured Interviews in Qualitative Research

Unveiling insights of semi-structured interviews in qualitative research, the methods for nuanced understanding and robust data analysis.

Qualitative research explores the rich complexities of human experiences, perceptions, and meanings. In the research area, semi-structured interviews emerge as a versatile method to gather in-depth insights from participants. Unlike rigidly structured interviews, semi-structured interviews provide a flexible framework that combines predetermined questions with the freedom to explore emergent topics and probe deeper into participants’ thoughts and experiences. This article aims to show the purpose, benefits, and best practices of utilizing semi-structured interviews in qualitative research. By understanding how this approach facilitates a nuanced exploration of research questions, researchers can harness its potential to capture the multifaceted nature of human phenomena and gain rich and meaningful data that enhances the understanding of diverse social, psychological, and cultural phenomena.

What Are Semi-structured Interviews In Qualitative Research?

A semi-structured interview is a qualitative research method that combines aspects of both structured and unstructured interviews. In a semi-structured interview, the researcher prepares a set of predetermined questions or topics to guide the conversation with the participant, but there is also room for flexibility and follow-up questions based on the participant’s responses. This allows for a more conversational and exploratory approach, enabling the researcher to delve deeper into specific areas of interest and capture detailed and nuanced information.

Also read: What’s the Difference: Qualitative vs Quantitative Research?

Semi-structured interviews enable researchers to explore participants’ perspectives, experiences, and perceptions in-depth. They can uncover rich narratives, personal insights, and contextual details that may not emerge in more standardized interview formats. The open-ended nature of semi-structured interviews allows for a holistic understanding of the research topic and captures the complexity of human experiences.

The Purpose Of Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews serve as a dynamic means of collecting qualitative data, allowing researchers to engage in a conversation with participants while maintaining a certain level of flexibility. These interviews enable researchers to explore research questions, delve into participants’ perspectives, and gain a comprehensive understanding of the studied phenomena. The purpose of semi-structured interviews extends beyond factual information; it aims to uncover participants’ perceptions, beliefs, values, and emotions, providing valuable insights into their subjective experiences.

When To Use A Semi-Structured Interview?

When conducting qualitative research, the decision to use a semi-structured interview approach is influenced by various factors. Semi-structured interviews are particularly suitable when exploring complex and multifaceted topics that require full understanding. They are valuable when researchers aim to capture participants’ perspectives, experiences, and narratives in a flexible and open-ended manner. Semi-structured interviews are effective when the research objectives involve exploring diverse viewpoints, identifying patterns and themes, and gaining insights into individuals’ thoughts and emotions. Additionally, this approach is advantageous when researchers seek to establish rapport and build a collaborative relationship with participants, as it allows for meaningful and interactive conversations. The use of semi-structured interviews empowers researchers to investigate the richness of participants’ experiences while maintaining a level of versatility and adaptability in data collection.

Benefits Of Semi-Structured Interviews

Flexibility and Adaptability: Semi-structured interviews offer a balance between structure and flexibility, allowing researchers to adapt their questioning based on participant responses. This approach enables researchers to examine specific areas of interest, explore unexpected avenues, and capture nuanced information that may not emerge in rigidly structured interviews.

Participant-Centered Approach: Semi-structured interviews place participants at the center of the research process, valuing their perspectives and experiences. By creating a conversational and comfortable atmosphere, researchers can foster trust and rapport, encouraging participants to share their thoughts openly. This approach facilitates a collaborative and co-constructed knowledge-building process, capturing the complexity of participants’ lived experiences.

In-Depth Exploration: Through semi-structured interviews, researchers can delve deeply into participants’ narratives, unraveling intricate details and uncovering hidden meanings. The open-ended nature of these interviews allows for rich descriptions, personal anecdotes, and contextual insights, enabling researchers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research topic.

Disadvantages Of Semi-Structured Interviews

While semi-structured interviews offer several benefits, it is important to consider their potential disadvantages in qualitative research. One disadvantage is the possibility of interviewer bias or influence. As the interviewer plays an active role in guiding the interview, their personal biases, assumptions, or interpretations may inadvertently shape the participants’ responses. This can compromise the objectivity of the data collected. Another challenge is the time-consuming nature of semi-structured interviews. Conducting interviews, transcribing, and analyzing the data can be a lengthy process, requiring substantial time and resources.

Also read: A Problem Called Sampling Bias

Additionally, the quality of the data obtained may depend on the interviewer’s skills and experience in conducting interviews and eliciting rich responses from participants. If the interviewer lacks proper training or expertise, the quality and depth of the data collected may be compromised. Lastly, the open-ended nature of semi-structured interviews may lead to a vast amount of qualitative data that can be challenging to analyze and interpret, requiring careful attention and rigorous analysis techniques.

Key Considerations For Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews

After confirming that a semi-structured interview aligns with the research topic, the following sequential steps are used to prepare and conduct a semi-structured interview:

Step 1: Define The Objective And Research Scope

Begin by clarifying the purpose of the semi-structured interview and why it is the most suitable research method for the study. Consider the specific knowledge or insights that are intended to be gained through the interview process.

Step 2: Develop Well-Designed Interview Questions

Craft the interview questions to be open-ended, simple, and concise. Take care with the choice of words, particularly when discussing sensitive topics. Ensure that the questions allow for participants to provide detailed and nuanced responses.

Step 3: Identify The Target Group(s) For The Interview

Determine the specific population or groups to engage with during the semi-structured interview. Depending on the size of the target group, utilize random or stratified sampling techniques to select a representative sample. Alternatively, if the group is small, the interview may be with all potential participants.

Step 4: Plan The Logistics Of The Interview

Decide on the details of how, when, and where the interview will take place. Obtain consent from participants and provide them with advance notice of the interview date, time, and location. Choose an environment conducive to open and comfortable communication.

Step 5: Conduct The Interviews

Initiate the interviews by engaging in a casual conversation to establish rapport and build trust with the participants. During face-to-face interviews, actively listen to respondents, paying attention to their non-verbal cues such as body language, gestures, and vocal changes. Maintain a non-judgmental, empathetic, and friendly demeanor throughout the interview process.

Step 6: Transcribe The Interview Recordings

Transcribe the audio or video recordings of the semi-structured interviews. Transcription converts spoken content into written form, aiding in data analysis. Seek appropriate resources or tools to assist you in effectively transcribing the interviews.

Step 7: Code And Categorize The Data

Next, analyze the data collected from the semi-structured interviews. Coding involves carefully examining the transcribed data to identify recurring patterns, themes, and categories. This process helps in organizing and making sense of the information obtained. Consider using specialized coding interview software to streamline this task.

Also read: Mastering Analysis: The Role of Codebook Qualitative Research

Step 8: Analyze The Coded Data

Once the coding process is complete, analyze the coded data to gain meaningful insights. Utilize qualitative data analysis tools, such as Delve, to explore the data more deeply and uncover valuable findings. Draw connections between themes and patterns to develop a comprehensive understanding of the interview outcomes.

Step 9: Present Findings In A Research Paper Or Report

Transform the analysis into a coherent narrative by presenting the results in a research paper or report. Communicate the story behind the data, emphasizing key insights and supporting evidence. Structure the paper to effectively convey the significance and implications of findings in relation to research objectives.

Add Visual Impact To Your Posters With Scientific Illustrations And Graphics

Mind The Graph platform revolutionizes scientific communication by empowering scientists to add visual impact to their posters through scientific illustrations and graphics. With a user-friendly interface and a vast library of pre-designed elements, researchers can effortlessly create visually captivating posters that effectively convey complex scientific concepts. The platform offers a wide range of customizable templates, allowing scientists to tailor their posters to their specific research needs. Whether presenting at conferences, sharing research with colleagues, or publishing scientific papers, Mind the Graph empowers scientists to create visually stunning posters that leave a lasting impression and elevate the impact of their scientific work.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

Content tags

Semi-structured Interviewing

The semi-structured interview is the most common qualitative data collection technique used in the social sciences. Despite being so ubiquitous the nuances of the technique are often overlooked, and many scientists find themselves conducting interviews with little formal training or guidance on how to improve their interviewing skills. Drawing from multiple topic areas, this hands-on and pragmatic workshop will cover how to: (a) formulate appropriate research questions; (b) create comprehensive frameworks and interview protocols; (c) ask effective questions to elicit in-depth (and often sensitive) information; and (d) make cost-efficient recording, archiving and transcription choices.

Dr. Gery Ryan is a professor in the Department of Health Systems Science at the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine (KPSOM). Prior to joining KPSOM, he was a Senior Behavioral Scientist at the RAND Corporation and served as Assistant Dean of Academics at the Pardee RAND Graduate School in Policy Analysis. Trained as a medical anthropologist and methodologist, he has conducted research on decision-making processes, ethnographies of health care and education systems, and complex evaluations of implementation projects. His research spans mental and physical health and includes work on HIV/AIDS, homelessness, depression, serious mental illness, childhood illnesses, obesity, social networks, human trafficking, and complementary and alternative medicine. He also has spent extensive time in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East addressing health and education-related problems. As a methodologist and evaluator, he specializes in the integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies; designing, implementing, and assessing complex system interventions; and quality-improvement projects. Dr. Ryan has taught graduate courses and mentored clinical researchers in advanced ethnographic methods; run qualitative workshops sponsored by NSF, NIH, CDC and WHO; and co-authored a comprehensive textbook on text analysis.

This workshop is limited to 20 participants

Instructor: Dr. Gery W. Ryan

Registration Fee: $50

Date: February 23

Time: 9:30am - 4:00pm

Location: Cowden Building, room 124

Lunch will be provided for all participants

This workshop and waitlist are full.

The UK Faculty of Public Health has recently taken ownership of the Health Knowledge resource. This new, advert-free website is still under development and there may be some issues accessing content. Additionally, the content has not been audited or verified by the Faculty of Public Health as part of an ongoing quality assurance process and as such certain material included maybe out of date. If you have any concerns regarding content you should seek to independently verify this.

Semi-structured, narrative, and in-depth interviewing, focus groups, action research, participant observation

In contrast to survey questionnaires, qualitative interviewing aims to delve deep beneath the surface of superficial responses to obtain true meanings that individuals assign to events, and the complexity of their attitudes, behaviours and experiences. Qualitative interviews may take different formats depending on the nature of the research question and the population studied.

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews are characterised by topic guides containing major questions that are used in the same way in every interview, although the sequence of the questions might vary as well as the level of probing for information by the interviewer. Semi-structured interviewing is suitable when the researcher already has some grasp of what is happening within the sample in relation to the research topic. However, the researcher should ensure there is no danger of loss of meaning as a consequence of imposing a standard way of asking questions (6). This could be achieved by conducting pilot interviews (these use broad topic guides with few direct questions) prior to data collection.

Even in a semi-structured interview, the questions posed during the interview should be as open-ended as possible, in order to avoid yes/no or rehearsed answers. Further, the questioning techniques should encourage respondents to communicate their underlying attitudes, beliefs and values that are so central to this method. This can be limited where the interviewee has a lack of awareness/information or is not used to putting feelings into words. Interviewees might feel exposed by questions (in particular where attitudes are probed in sensitive topics such as political attitudes, sexual orientation, borderline or illegal behaviour). On the other hand, interviewees might feel that they need to present themselves in a specific way in order to fit in with their perception of the researcher's requirements, or wish to bring in their own agenda of life-topics that do not fit easily with the aim of the interview. For these reasons, it is important to build a rapport with the interviewee before starting the interview so that both sides can feel more at ease. Different ways of posing questions and using probing and prompting help to elicit more information or steer the interview.

Narrative interviews

Unstructured interviewing allows the respondent to tell their own stories in their own words, with prompting by the interviewer. The objective of the unstructured interview has been summarised as, 'to elicit rich, detailed materials that can be used in qualitative analysis. Its objective is to find out what kind of things are happening rather than to determine the frequency of predetermined kinds of things that the researcher already believes can happen' (7). In an unstructured interview, the researcher simply has a list of topics that they want the respondent to talk about. But the way the questions are phrased and which order they come will vary from one interview to the next as the interview process is determined by the responses (stories) of the interviewees.

In-depth interviews

In in-depth interviews the aim is to obtain a more detailed, rich understanding of the topic of interest. They usually comprise an ethnographic approach and complement participant observation or action research methods.

In in-depth interviews the participant’s experience, behaviour, feelings, and/or attitudes may be probed deeply to identify underlying concepts that the researcher analyses to generate a theory surrounding the research topic. In-depth interviews are more structured than narrative interviews as the topic discussed will be directed by the researcher and they rarely involve stories or life histories. However in-depth interviews do allow the participant to communicate much more freely and to provide more detailed descriptions when compared to semi-structured interviews.

Sometimes interviewers do not reveal all the exact details of the research hypothesis when conducting in-depth interviews, as this may influence or “lead” the qualitative material obtained. Rather, the general area of interest is explained to the participant as part of recruitment and consent (see later in the chapter) and the interviewer directs the interview according to the responses.

Focus groups

Focus groups are a form of group interview with the aim of capturing the interaction between the participants based on topics that are supplied by the researcher(8). The main purpose of focus group research is to evoke a level of respondents' attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions otherwise not available when using methods, such as observation or interviewing. These attitudes, feelings and beliefs may be partially independent of a group or its social setting, but are more likely to be revealed via the social gathering and the interaction created in a focus group. Focus groups are particularly useful when there are power differences between the participants and decision-makers or professionals, when the everyday use of language and culture of particular groups is of interest, and when one wants to explore the degree of consensus on a given topic (9). For these reasons, it is important to make sure that the participants have a specific experience/opinion about the topic to be discussed, and that a specific interview guide is used.

Despite all the potential of focus groups, this method has its limitations. However, these limitations are dependent on the study design and can be reduced by diligent planning. Four of the main limitations are:

(a) The researcher has less control over the data produced

(b) The researcher has little control over the interaction other than generally keeping participants focused on the topic

(c) The researcher can have difficulties in recruiting and assembling the focus group (e.g. finding a date and time for seven busy health care professionals, or resistance from people who are less articulate or confident)

(d) The researcher cannot assure full confidentiality and anonymity as information is shared in the group.

The practical organisation of focus groups requires the following:

• Planning the recruitment process
• Negotiating the date and time of the focus group
• Choosing a venue (a neutral place is usually of advantage; where participants live/work too far apart the focus group can also be conducted via a telephone conference line)
• Ensuring adequate recording facilities
• Organising a co-moderator (e.g. to take notes and monitor recording equipment), deciding how many people should be in the focus group (usually six to ten)
• Informing participants about the potential length of the focus group (usually one to two hours).
• Being clear about the role of the moderator. This will require the researcher to provide clear explanations of the purpose to the group, ask questions and facilitate interaction between group members (e.g. allowing quieter participants to speak).

Action research

This is a collaborative and cyclical (between practical action and research) approach to research, in which both practitioners (e.g. clinicians, nurses, public health specialists, etc.) and researchers (although they can potentially be one and the same) look for a solution to a practice-related problem or to bring about change in a particular setting. Action research methodologies aim to integrate action and reflection, so that the knowledge developed in the research process is directly relevant to the issues being studied. Action research has a long history, going back to social scientists' attempts to help solve practical problems in wartime situations in both Europe and America. Over the past ten years there has been a resurgence of interest, and many developments in both theory and practice. The newer approaches to action research place emphasis on a full integration of action and reflection and on increased collaboration between all those involved in the inquiry project. They include, among other approaches, "co-operative inquiry", "participatory action research", and "action science" or "action inquiry".

Participant observation

When undertaking observational fieldwork the researcher is also known as the 'ethnographer' as he/she attempts to discover the practices and meanings that the members of the group under study take for granted (10). By observing a group of people, the researcher sets out to identify the meanings people develop about their existence (11). In participant observation, the researcher adopts the perspective of those studied. For example, a study might be interested in the rules of the waiting room in a GP practice. The researcher in his/her observing role would adopt the perspective of a patient waiting to be called in to see the doctor. He/she would observe the interaction of the people present, e.g. the receptionist, other patients, cleaning staff, an occasional appearance of a nurse. However, this does not mean simply adopting a passive watching role; the researcher might also interact with those that he/she is observing.

Observation can involve a combination of methods, including e.g. unstructured conversations/interviews, notes on observations, recordings (audio and video) and illustrative material (floor maps, information material). Nevertheless, like all data collection methods, observation does have its limitations. These include observer bias (the influence the observer's presence might have on the situation he/she is watching), and the difficulty of replicating the data.

There are a number of points that a researcher needs to be cognisant of before embarking on observational fieldwork, a selection is listed here:

• Selecting the field setting
• Gaining access
• Deciding whether participant observation will be concealed (e.g. gaining employment to field setting without informing anyone there about the observation) or open (i.e. being open about the observing role)
• Recording the action - field notes
• Validation of the observations

© I Crinson & M Leontowitsch 2006, G Morgan 2016