phone interview in qualitative research

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Is There a Bias Against Telephone Interviews In Qualitative Research?

Gina novick , rn, cnm, msn.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding Address: 65 Wright Lane, Hamden, CT 06517, Phone: (203) 407-0663, [email protected]

Telephone interviews are largely neglected in the qualitative research literature and, when discussed, they are often depicted as a less attractive alternative to face-to-face interviewing. The absence of visual cues via telephone is thought to result in loss of contextual and nonverbal data and to compromise rapport, probing, and interpretation of responses. Yet, telephones may allow respondents to feel relaxed and able to disclose sensitive information, and evidence is lacking that they produce lower quality data. This apparent bias against telephone interviews contrasts with a growing interest in electronic qualitative interviews. Research is needed comparing these modalities, and examining their impact on data quality and their use for studying varying topics and populations. Such studies could contribute evidence-based guidelines for optimizing interview data.

Keywords: Design development, Qualitative

Telephone interviews are used extensively in quantitative research ( Barriball, Christian, While, & Bergen, 1996 ; Carr & Worth, 2001 ) and are often discussed in the survey methodology literature. In contrast, relatively few qualitative studies employ telephone interviews ( Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ), and there is little methodological discussion of the telephone mode in the qualitative research literature. When qualitative telephone interviews are discussed, they tend to be depicted as the less attractive alternative to face-to-face interviews. In this article, I explore the use of, and apparent bias against, telephone interviews in qualitative research.

Telephone Interviews in Quantitative Research

The telephone interview is an accepted and well-studied approach for quantitative data collection; it is a principal survey method ( Aday, 1996 ) and the most widely used survey modality in industrialized nations ( Bernard, 2002 ). Reported advantages of telephone interviews include decreased cost and travel, ability to reach geographically dispersed respondents, ability to oversee interviewers (Aday), and enhanced interviewer safety (Bernard). Reported drawbacks of telephone interviews include limited telephone coverage in certain areas, lower response rates (Aday; Bernard; Groves, 1990 ), need for short interview duration (Aday; Bernard), and absence of visual or nonverbal cues ( Aquilino, 1994 ; Groves)

Researchers have also explored the effect of interview mode on survey outcomes, although findings vary. Aquilino (1994) reported that levels of admission of substance abuse in face-to-face interviews were higher than in telephone interviews. Yet, Pridemore, Damphousse and Moore (2005) found increased admission of recent substance use in face-to-face interviews, but not of ever-use. Findings of studies examining the effect of interview mode on elicitation of psychiatric symptoms are also conflicting ( Henson, Cannell, & Roth, 1978 ; Moum, 1998 ).

When mode-related differences in outcome are demonstrated, it is still not clear what accounts for them. Hensen et al. (1978) suggested that although the face-to-face mode might facilitate openness, respondents might be subtly induced to admit symptoms they do not have. Considerable attention has been devoted to the absence of visual cues as another possible explanation for mode-related differences. Absence of visual cues is thought to deter disclosure of sensitive information and communication of emotions ( Groves, 1990 ; Henson et al; Moum, 1998 ), and it is hypothesized to have several effects that induce bias, including increasing social distance ( Aquilino, 1994 ; Groves), increasing or decreasing socially desirable responses (Groves; Henson et al.; Moum), reducing “feedback cues” (Henson et al., p. 128), and increasing or decreasing rapport ( Smith, 2005 ). In short, the picture of mode effect on survey outcomes is complex and unclear, but it is the object of a considerable amount of ongoing research and discussion.

Telephone Interviews in Qualitative Research

In contrast to quantitative research and the quantitative research literature, relatively few qualitative studies employ telephone interviews, and there is little methodological discussion of this mode. I conducted a search for articles in English-language publications on telephone interviews for data collection in qualitative research. Electronic search terms, used alone and in combination, included “telephone,” “phone,” “interview,” “qualitative,” “methodology,” “open-ended,” “semistructured,” and “interview mode.” Databases searched for the years 1990–2007 included CINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO, ISI Web of Knowledge, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Science Full Text. Relevant citations from located sources were pursued, and an academic reference librarian was consulted to ensure that search strategies and relevant articles were not overlooked.

I retrieved 14 articles that were published between 1988 and 2007. Of these 14 articles, 8 focus on telephone interviews for qualitative research ( Burke & Miller, 2001 ; Burnard, 1994 ; Carr, 1999 ; Carr & Worth, 2001 ; Chapple, 1999 ; Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ; Sweet, 2002 ; Tausig & Freeman, 1988 ). Four of these eight articles review the literature on the use of the telephone mode and offer discussions of the authors’ own use of telephone interviews for data collection (Carr & Worth; Sturges & Hanrahan; Sweet; Tausig & Freeman). In another four of these eight articles, authors discussed their use of the telephone for qualitative data collection (Burke & Miller; Burnard; Carr; Chapple). Finally, Sturges and Hanrahan also offered a systematic comparison of the impact of face-to-face and telephone modes on the nature and depth of interview responses.

Qualitative telephone interviews are not the focus of the remaining six articles, but they are included here because so few articles directly address this topic ( Garbett & McCormack, 2001 ; Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998 ; McCoyd & Kerson, 2006 ; Meho, 2006 ; Opdenakker, 2006 ; Smith, 2005 ). Three of these six articles address the topic of Internet interviews and include discussion of the telephone mode (McCoyd & Kerson; Meho; Opdenakker). Two articles include passing commentary on the telephone mode (Garbett & McCormack; Kavanaugh & Ayres). The last of these six articles is a literature review on telephone interviews not specifically focused on qualitative research (Smith). Beyond these 14 articles are those in which authors simply reported the use of telephone interviews in qualitative research but did not reflect on mode per se.

I also searched several dozen textbooks on the subjects of interviewing or qualitative research for information on the use of the telephone for qualitative interviews. These books were found in the online catalog of the Yale University Library system, in the stacks of the Yale Social Science Library, and through references suggested in two qualitative research courses. I first examined book indices and tables of contents. Few of them have entries for telephone interviews; when they do, they typically direct the reader to sections on telephone surveys ( Bernard, 2002 ; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000 ; Patton, 2002 ).

In addition, I explored chapters in several texts on qualitative research or on interviewing that might be expected to include discussion of qualitative telephone interviews. In these books, I often found comprehensive discussion of strategies for qualitative interviewing, but little about telephones. For example, in Patton’s (2002) book there is an 88-page chapter on qualitative interviewing with no discussion of qualitative telephone interviews. In a chapter on interviewing in Denzin and Lincoln’s 1,126 page anthology The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research , Fontana and Frey (2005) referred only in passing to telephone use for surveys, yet they offered a full page on issues related to electronic interviews. Finally, Gubrium and Holstein (2002) , in their 980-page anthology on interview research, included a chapter by Shuy (2002) with the promising title “In-Person Versus Telephone Interviewing.” However, in that chapter, interview mode is examined as it relates to survey research and practical interviews “such as those conducted by hearings officers, doctors, lawyers, and journalists” (p. 537). Also in the Gubrium and Holstein anthology, Warren’s (2002) chapter, entitled “Qualitative Interviewing,” offers no discussion of the telephone mode. Yet, this anthology includes several chapters on various aspects of conducting electronic interviews, including “Internet Interviewing,” which addresses topics such as developing relational skills, establishing rapport and trust, listening and pauses, exploring sensitive topics, and facilitating online focus groups ( Mann & Stewart, 2003 ).

No one textbook or anthology is obliged to cover every aspect of qualitative research, and there is no intent here to single out these books as deficient. Indeed, they were selected for detailed discussion because they exemplify comprehensive, much-cited resources. But they also exemplify the lack of “critical debate” ( Sweet, 2002 , p. 59) regarding qualitative telephone interviews, which contrasts with the growing attention in the qualitative research literature to exploring electronic qualitative interviews. In addition, those books in which telephone interviews were addressed had only passing and even dismissive references to them.

My search undoubtedly failed to locate other relevant publications, and the presence of a small body of research that employs and alludes to telephone interviews without fanfare or methodological discussion can be seen to indicate that some qualitative researchers view telephone interviews as legitimate. My point here is that in a systematic effort to learn about mode comparisons in qualitative research, I found little to guide me as compared with the ease of finding such material in the quantitative research literature. As Chapple (1999 , ¶3) noted:

While entire books have been written about the advantages and disadvantages of telephone interview for the purposes of social survey work…much less has been written about telephone interviewing as a means of gathering qualitative data.

Reviewing the Findings on Telephone Interviewing in Qualitative Research

Although used less often than face-to-face interviews in qualitative research ( Opdenakker, 2006 ; Sweet, 2002 ), telephone interviews may nevertheless be a “versatile” data collection tool ( Carr & Worth, 2001 , p. 521). Respondents have been described as relaxed on the telephone, and willing to talk freely and to disclose intimate information. Qualitative telephone data have been judged to be rich, vivid, detailed, and of high quality ( Chapple, 1999 ; Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998 ; Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ; Sweet).

When compared to in-person interviews, the advantages of using the telephone include decreased cost ( Chapple, 1999 ), increased access to geographically disparate subjects ( Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ; Sweet, 2002 ; Tausig & Freeman, 1988 ), decreased space requirements (Sweet), increased interviewer safety ( Carr & Worth, 2001 ; Sturges & Hanrahan), and the ability to take notes unobtrusively (Carr & Worth; Smith, 2005 ; Sturges & Hanrahan; Tausig & Freeman). Telephones allow participants to remain on “their own turf” ( McCoyd & Kerson, 2006 , p. 399), permit more anonymity (Sweet; Tausig & Freeman) and privacy (Sturges & Hanrahan), decrease social pressure, and increase rapport (McCoyd & Kerson).

Reported disadvantages include lack of telephone coverage for some participants ( Carr & Worth, 2001 ), absence of visual cues ( Garbett & McCormack, 2001 ), and the potential for distraction of participants by activities in their environments ( McCoyd & Kerson, 2006 ; Opdenakker, 2006 ), although such distractions were also reported during in-person interviews ( Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ). Another reported disadvantage is that telephone interviews must be kept short compared to face-to-face interviews ( Chapple, 1999 ; Creswell, 1998 ; Garbett & McCormack; Sturges & Hanrahan; Sweet, 2002 ), thereby reducing in-depth discussion. Yet, little evidence is presented for this claim, and McCoyd and Kerson reported that their telephone interviews typically lasted 1.5–2 hours, with little participant fatigue. Practical suggestions offered for conducting telephone interviews include establishing contact or rapport in person prior to conducting telephone interviews ( Burke & Miller, 2001 ; Carr & Worth, 2001 ) and using a prepared script to introduce the study at the beginning of the first telephone interview (Burke & Miller).

A Bias Against the Use of Telephones in Qualitative Research?

In much of the literature I reviewed, I discerned a tendency to view telephone mode as inferior to face-to-face interviews for qualitative research. This attitude is implicit in both the omission of telephone interviews in qualitative research texts and in the small body of existing literature on telephone interviews; it is explicit in comments that convey researchers’ low expectations of telephone interviews to elicit high quality data.

For example, Chapple (1999) was skeptical about the quality of the data she would obtain via telephone because she had always believed in the importance of face-to-face interviewing. Yet, she found that her data were unexpectedly rich. Carr (1999) noted that telephone interviews surpassed her expectations for them, suggesting that she had low expectations. Other authors implied that the use of the telephone could undermine quality when reporting that telephones were substituted for face-to-face interviews only when necessary ( Opdenakker, 2006 ; Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ; Sweet, 2002 ).

Authors of qualitative research texts are direct in asserting the superiority of face-to-face interviews in those infrequent situations when they discuss telephones for qualitative research at all. Shuy (2002) asserted that telephone interviewing must employ highly structured, closed ended questions, whereas in-person interviews simulate natural, everyday conversation and produces more self-generated responses. Rubin and Rubin (1995 , p. 141) observed:

Given the need to build a relationship and the importance of visible cues in conversations, you’d rightly expect that telephones are not a major way of conducting qualitative interviews. In telephone interviews, all sorts of conversational cues are missing, making for difficult interviewing under the best of circumstances.

Some authors have commented upon this apparent bias. Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) noted that qualitative researchers use telephones infrequently owing to concerns about whether telephones are appropriate for the task. Tausig and Freeman (1988 , p. 418) pointed out that interviews typically are assumed to be face-to-face, not via telephone, and that the thought of conducting a clinical research interview via telephone “invites clinical and methodological skepticism.” Although both author groups then proceeded to challenge these assumptions, their writing also reveals that they share this bias. Sturges and Hanrahan noted the lack of mode comparison research, conducted such a study themselves, and found that data from telephone interviews were comparable to data from in-person interviews. Yet, they described this project as exploring “whether telephone interviews can ‘stand in’ for face-to-face interviews” (p. 115), suggesting that in-person interviews were the default mode. Tausig and Freeman provided an account of conducting 48 telephone interviews on sensitive topics that elicited rich data. Nevertheless, their article is entitled “The next best thing to being there: Conducting the clinical research interview by telephone,” suggesting that they share the very bias that their article so effectively challenges.

To summarize the findings of my review, although authors have reported that qualitative telephone interviews may have many advantages and yield high quality data, there is relatively little formal evidence to be found regarding their merits and shortcomings vis-á-vis face-to-face interviews. There is a need for additional well-designed studies comparing interview modalities in qualitative research. Given the lack of evidence, it is unwarranted to favor any particular interview mode for qualitative interviews. Nevertheless, face-to face interviews appear to be viewed as the “gold standard” for qualitative research ( McCoyd & Kerson, 2006 , p. 389).

An Explanation for the Bias: Absence of Visual Cues and Data Loss and Distortion

This bias toward face-to-face interviewing appears to reflect a fundamental concern about the absence of visual cues and its impact on data quality. Because telephone conversation is indeed talk “constrained to sounds, split from action” ( Hopper, 1992 , p. 8), the absence of visual cues cannot be disputed. Absence of visual cues is said to have a number of effects, including the loss of informal communication and contextual information, the inability to develop rapport or to probe, and the misinterpretation of responses ( Chapple, 1999 ; Creswell, 1998 ; Opdenakker, 2006 ; Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ; Sweet, 2002 ). Yet, there is little research confirming these effects, and there is no clear understanding of how they might compromise qualitative data.

In this section, I try to clarify and evaluate the underlying concerns regarding the effects of absence of visual cues. Absence of visual cues could result in data loss or distortion, which in turn, could harm data quality. Three principal types of data loss or distortion might result from the absence of visual cues: (a) loss of nonverbal data, which includes responses such as facial expressions and body language; (b) loss of contextual data, which includes information about the environment as well as physical features of the respondent (e.g., appearance, manners, race or age); and (c) loss or distortion of verbal data, which consists of spoken words.

Loss of Nonverbal Data

Nonverbal interview data can contain cognitive or emotional content, and are thought to contribute to the richness of data and interpretation of participants’ verbal responses ( Burnard, 1994 ; Chapple, 1999 ; Fontana & Frey, 2005 ). Information conveyed in gestures and actions is undeniably lost via telephone. However, these data may not always be essential or helpful, as nonverbal behavior can easily be misinterpreted (Burnard; Chapple; Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ). Furthermore, these data may not actually be used extensively in analyses that rely heavily on transcripts rather than on field notes. Finally, there may be ways of compensating for the absence of nonverbal responses, such as intonation ( Opdenakker, 2006 ), and hesitations and sighs (Sturges & Hanrahan). As Hopper (1992 , p. 8) noted regarding telephone conversation, “visual cues are absent, but what those cues accomplish in face-to-face encounters does not go undone.” Thus, while nonverbal responses are lost in the telephone mode, there may be compensation for their loss, and, when present, nonverbal responses are not always interpreted accurately or used.

Loss of Contextual Data

Opdenakker (2006) stated that a disadvantage of being unable to see participants is that the interviewer cannot see where the interviewee is situated. The value placed on contextual data may be traced to the origins of qualitative research in sociology and anthropology ( Patton, 2002 ; Warren, 2002 ) in which ethnographic methods, most notably, participant-observation, are prized However, not all qualitative designs include participant-observation.

Furthermore, there are different types of qualitative interviews, including informal interviews occurring during fieldwork, and more formal, focused and structured interviews ( Patton, 2002 ; Warren, 2002 ). Natural settings are sometimes discouraged for more formal interviews to decrease environmental distractions ( Creswell, 1998 ), suggesting that context can sometimes interfere with collecting interview data. If a formal telephone interview is the only interaction between researcher and participant, contextual data indeed might be lost. For example, features such as participant attire or residence that may signal economic status would not be conveyed. But such data do not always enhance the understanding or interpretation of words ( Burnard, 1994 ). Accordingly, loss of contextual data may not always undermine the quality of qualitative findings.

Loss or Distortion of Verbal Data

Use of the telephone might reduce rapport, probing, and in-depth discussion, and may result in distortion of data. The development of rapport is central to qualitative research interview processes ( Fontana & Frey, 2005 ; Patton, 2002 ) , and loss of rapport might diminish the quality or quantity of responses ( Sweet, 2002 ). Rapport may be reduced if it is more difficult to create a “good interview ambience” ( Opdenakker, 2006 ,¶ 13) via telephone. In fact, however, participants may feel more relaxed and able to disclose sensitive information when not in the interviewer’s presence (Chapple; Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998 ; Opdenakker). In addition, interviewers can employ strategies to create a sense of connectedness and to put participants at ease. These include taking time to chat informally before the interview ( Burnard, 1994 ) and careful choice of words and intonation to respond empathically and non-judgmentally to disclosures of sensitive information ( Tausig & Freeman, 1988 ).

Telephones are also thought to reduce rapport through loss of contextual or nonverbal data ( Sweet, 2002 ). However, there are ways of compensating for this loss; interviewers can cultivate awareness of auditory cues, such as anger, sarcasm, curt responses, or “rapid, compulsive speech” ( Tausig & Freeman, 1988 , p. 424). Furthermore, certain visual data, such as race, attire or neighborhood, may not necessarily build rapport. Smith (2005) noted that because the physical appearance of interviewer and participant has less influence in the telephone interview, participants might feel more at ease and focused on the conversation.

Another way that telephones might be thought to reduce rapport is that the use of technology per se may be viewed as intrusive. Shuy (2002) asserted that telephone interviews generate less natural responses than face-to-face interviews. But the widespread use of recording devices ( Bernard, 2002 ; Creswell, 1998 ), as well as the burgeoning use of the Internet for qualitative interviews ( Beck, 2005 ; Egan, Chenoweth, & McAuliffe, 2006 ; Fontana & Frey, 2005 ; Hamilton & Bowers, 2006 ; Mann & Stewart, 2003 ; McAuliffe, 2003 ; Meho, 2006 ), suggest that the use of technology is actually well-accepted in qualitative research. Furthermore, given the increasingly widespread use of cellular telephones ( Carr & Worth, 2001 ), telephone communication is probably perceived as quite natural in many contemporary societies.

Apart from the possible impact of the absence of nonverbal cues on rapport, loss or distortion of data may occur if telephone interviews inhibit probing or in-depth discussion. If telephone interviews are shorter or less comprehensive than face-to-face interviews, then quantity and quality of data would be compromised. Some authors have suggested that, when comparing telephone and face-to-face interviews, quantity and quality of data obtained via telephone are not affected adversely ( Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ; Sweet, 2002 ). In contrast, others have reported that telephone interviews have less depth than other modes ( McCoyd & Kerson, 2006 ) and that the absence of visual cues decreases the ability to probe ( Carr & Worth, 2001 ). Carr and Worth also reported, however, that less probing results in conversational pauses that permit respondents to provide more in-depth responses that might otherwise have been blocked by the interviewer interrupting.

This observation suggests the key role that silence may play in telephone interviews. Sweet (2002 , p. 62) found it “difficult to assess silences and nuances” on the telephone, and Tausig and Freeman (1988 , p. 424) noted that:

(on the telephone), silences had to be tolerated and assessed so that the interviewer could act appropriately. Thoughtful pauses differed from defensive or angry ones, and were often differentiated by the degree of discomfort experienced by the interviewers.

Researchers also may feel awkward when interacting with participants in person. In fact, considerable attention has been devoted to imparting tactics for cultivating relationships and rapport when collecting qualitative data in person, for example, how to enter the field as a participant-observer, how to conduct interviews on sensitive subjects, or how to conduct interviews that respect different cultural values ( Bernard, 2002 ; Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998 ; Patton, 2002 ). The emphasis on developing rapport and on putting interviewee and interviewer at ease is also evident in the literature on electronic interviews. Suggestions for addressing the electronic “nonresponse in a virtual venue” ( Mann & Stewart, 2003 , p. 618) – the electronic equivalent of verbal silence - include responding promptly to participant questions, asking follow-up questions, and sharing similar experiences.

Apparently, then, collecting or generating interview data creates interpersonal demands, regardless of mode, and some researchers might be more comfortable conducting interviews via telephone. Irrespective of mode, however, it seems that interviewers need to develop strategies to feel comfortable, put participants at ease, and develop rapport. Given the limited attention to qualitative telephone interviews, the literature describing such tactics is scant, although some articles do offer such advice ( Burnard, 1994 ; McCoyd & Kerson, 2006 ; Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004 ; Tausig & Freeman, 1988 ). But this need could be addressed more fully were qualitative telephone interviews to become more widely embraced.

Finally, when interviewee and interviewer are not visible to one another, they might misrepresent themselves ( Nunkoosing, 2005 ), and researchers may be unable to detect “misleading information” ( Garbett & McCormack, 2001 , p. 101). If true, this would result in distorted data, yet there is no evidence that this occurs more often via telephone than in person.

In summary, although loss of rapport, inability to probe, or deception via telephone may be thought to result in loss of or distortion of verbal data, there is no evidence that these problems arise. Furthermore, interviewing can create interpersonal stressors, and interviewers may need mode-specific tactics designed to assist them in navigating these challenges.

The apparent assumption that face-to-face interviews are superior to telephone interviews may stem from a legitimate concern that lack of visual cues could lead to data loss or distortion. If these losses occurred, data analysis and interpretation might be affected, harming the quality of research findings. Yet, there is little evidence that data loss or distortion occurs, or that interpretation or quality of findings is compromised when interview data is collected by telephone. In fact, telephones may allow respondents to disclose sensitive information more freely, and telephone conversation has been reported to contain several features that render it particularly suitable for research interviews ( Hopper, 1992 ).

The neglect of, or bias against, telephone interviewing in the qualitative research literature contrasts strikingly with the growing interest in qualitative electronic interviewing ( Beck, 2005 ; Egan, Chenoweth, & McAuliffe, 2006 ; Fontana & Frey, 2005 ; Mann & Stewart, 2003 ; McAuliffe, 2003 ; McCoyd & Kerson, 2006 ; Meho, 2006 ). Internet interviews are seen as “cutting edge” (McAuliffe, p. 59), as offering “unprecedented opportunities” for conducting qualitative research (Meho, p. 1293), and as a way to develop meaningful relationships with participants and to give voice to the disenfranchised (Beck). Thus, it seems that telephone interviews neither have the endorsement enjoyed by face-to-face interviews, which are seen as the gold standard, nor the excitement generated by Internet interviews, which are seen as “challenging methodological boundaries ” (McAuliffe, p. 59).

More research is needed comparing these different interview modalities, examining such factors as researchers’ and respondents’ experiences of them, their impact on the nature and quality of data, their use for studying topics of varying sensitivity and complexity, and their effectiveness when interviewing participants varying in age, sex, and health and social status. Researchers also should explore when any one interview mode might be appropriate or inappropriate to use and generate strategies for establishing rapport and eliciting comprehensive and detailed responses via different modes. Such investigations will help determine whether the face-to-face mode deserves to remain the gold standard for qualitative research interviews, and enable the development of evidence-based guidelines for qualitative researchers who seek to optimize the quality of their interview data.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges Margaret Grey, DrPH, RN, FAAN and Lois Sadler, PhD, APRN-BC, PNP for their advice and many helpful suggestions for developing and editing earlier versions of this manuscript.

• Aday L. Designing and conducting health surveys. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aquilino WS. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1994;58:210–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barriball KL, Christian SL, While AE, Bergen A. The telephone survey method: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1996;24:115–121. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.17016.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck CT. Benefits of participating in Internet interviews: Women helping women. Qualitative Health Research. 2005;15:411–422. doi: 10.1177/1049732304270837. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard H. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 3. Lanham, MD: Altamira; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke L, Miller M. Phone interviewing as a means of data collection: Lessons learned and practical recommendations [Online journal] Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2001;2 Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-01/2-01burkemiller-e.htm .
• Burnard P. The telephone interview as a data collection method. Nurse Education Today. 1994;14:67–72. doi: 10.1016/0260-6917(94)90060-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr EC. Talking on the telephone with people who have experienced pain in hospital: Clinical audit or research? Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1999;29:194–200. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00875.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr EC, Worth A. The use of the telephone interview for research. NT Research. 2001;6:511–524. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapple A. Nurse Researcher. Vol. 6. 1999. The use of telephone interviewing for qualitative research; pp. 85–93. Retrieved from Journals@OVID. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of qualitative research. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Egan J, Chenoweth L, McAuliffe D. Email-facilitated qualitative interviews with traumatic brain injury survivors: A new and accessible method. Brain Injury. 2006;20:1283–1294. doi: 10.1080/02699050601049692. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fontana A, Frey J. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005. The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement; pp. 695–727. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garbett R, McCormack B. The experience of practice development: An exploratory telephone interview study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2001;10:94–102. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2001.00455.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Groves R. Theories and methods of telephone surveys. Annual Review of Sociology. 1990;16:221–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamilton RJ, Bowers BJ. Internet recruitment and e-mail interviews in qualitative studies. Qualitative Health Research. 2006;16:821–835. doi: 10.1177/1049732306287599. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henson R, Cannell CF, Roth AV. Effects of interview mode on reporting of moods, symptoms, and need for social approval. Journal of Social Psychology. 1978;105:123–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopper R. Conversation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kavanaugh K, Ayres L. “Not as bad as it could have been”: Assessing and mitigating harm during research interviews on sensitive topics. Research in Nursing & Health. 1998;21:91–97. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199802)21:1<91::aid-nur10>3.0.co;2-c. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann C, Stewart F. Internet interviewing. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, editors. Postmodern interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003. pp. 603–627. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAuliffe D. Challenging methodological traditions: Research by email [Electronic Version] The Qualitative Report. 2003;8:57–69. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1/mcauliffe.pdf .
• McCoyd JL, Kerson TS. Conducting intensive interviews using email: A serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work. 2006;5:389–406. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meho LI. E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodologic discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2006;57:1284–1295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moum T. Mode of administration and interviewer effects in self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. Social Indicators Research. 1998;45:279–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nunkoosing K. The problems with interviews. Qualitative Health Research. 2005;15:698–706. doi: 10.1177/1049732304273903. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Opdenakker R. Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research [Electronic Journal] Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2006;7:Article 11. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/4-06/06-4-11-e.htm .
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pridemore W, Damphousse K, Moore R. Obtaining sensitive information from a wary population: A comparison of telephone and face-to-face surveys of welfare recipients in the United States. Social Science & Medicine. 2005;61:976–984. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.006. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shuy RW. In-person versus telephone interviewing. In: Gubrium JG, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002. pp. 537–555. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith EM. Telephone interviewing in healthcare research: A summary of the evidence. Nurse Researcher. 2005;12(3):32–41. doi: 10.7748/nr2005.01.12.3.32.c5946. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research. 2004;4:107–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweet L. Telephone interviewing: Is it compatible with interpretive phenomenological research? Contemporary Nurse. 2002;12:58–63. doi: 10.5172/conu.12.1.58. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tausig JE, Freeman EW. The next best thing to being there: Conducting the clinical research interview by telephone. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1988;58:418–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1988.tb01602.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren CA. Qualitative interviewing. In: Gubrium JG, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002. pp. 83–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (44.8 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

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

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

Interviews in the social sciences

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

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

760k Accesses

115 Citations

191 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Interdisciplinary studies

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

Similar content being viewed by others

The fundamental importance of method to theory

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

Participatory action research

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

Experimentation

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

Research design

Participant selection.

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

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

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

Data collection

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

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

Topic guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optimizing the interview

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

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

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

Ethics and reflexivity

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

Ethical considerations prior to interview

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

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

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

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

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

Box 1 Mapping potential forms of harm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethical considerations post-interview

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

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

Reflexivity and positionality

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

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

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

Box 2 Aspects to reflect on reflexively

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

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

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

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

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

Educational experiences and privileges, see above

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

Political and social values

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

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

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

Preparing data

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

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

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

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

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

Box 3 Excerpt of interview transcript (from Teeger 24 )

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

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

Interviewer : So what kind of things do you do?

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

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

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

Reprinted with permission from ref. 24 , Sage Publications.

From data to codes

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

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

From coding to analysis and writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications

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

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

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

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

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

Nationalism and ethnicity

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

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

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

Education and inequality

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

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

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

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

The welfare state

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

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

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

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

Reproducibility and data deposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations and optimizations

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

Breadth versus depth of insight

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

Naturalistic or artificial interviews

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

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

Dynamism and replicability

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

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

Accessing the private and personal

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

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

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

Collaborating and mixing

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

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

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

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

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

Digital innovations and challenges

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

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

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

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

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

The next 5–10 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleanor Knott .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

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

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Accepted : 14 July 2022

Published : 15 September 2022

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

What the textbooks don’t teach about the reality of running a digitally enabled health study: a phenomenological interview study.

• Meghan Bradway
• Elia Garbarron
• Eirik Årsand

BMC Digital Health (2024)

Anti-Black racism in Canadian health care: a qualitative study of diverse perceptions of racism and racial discrimination among Black adults in Montreal, Quebec

• Khandideh K. A. Williams
• Shamara Baidoobonso
• Alayne M. Adams

BMC Public Health (2024)

Development of a digital intervention for psychedelic preparation (DIPP)

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

Scientific Reports (2024)

‘Life Minus Illness = Recovery’: A Phenomenological Study About Experiences and Meanings of Recovery Among Individuals with Serious Mental Illness from Southern India

• Srishti Hegde
• Shalini Quadros
• Vinita A. Acharya

Community Mental Health Journal (2024)

Can dry rivers provide a good quality of life? Integrating beneficial and detrimental nature’s contributions to people over time

• Néstor Nicolás-Ruiz
• María Luisa Suárez
• Cristina Quintas-Soriano

Ambio (2024)

Quick links

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

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

How to conduct qualitative interviews (tips and best practices)

Last updated

18 May 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

However, conducting qualitative interviews can be challenging, even for seasoned researchers. Poorly conducted interviews can lead to inaccurate or incomplete data, significantly compromising the validity and reliability of your research findings.

When planning to conduct qualitative interviews, you must adequately prepare yourself to get the most out of your data. Fortunately, there are specific tips and best practices that can help you conduct qualitative interviews effectively.

• What is a qualitative interview?

A qualitative interview is a research technique used to gather in-depth information about people's experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. Unlike a structured questionnaire or survey, a qualitative interview is a flexible, conversational approach that allows the interviewer to delve into the interviewee's responses and explore their insights and experiences.

In a qualitative interview, the researcher typically develops a set of open-ended questions that provide a framework for the conversation. However, the interviewer can also adapt to the interviewee's responses and ask follow-up questions to understand their experiences and views better.

• How to conduct interviews in qualitative research

Conducting interviews involves a well-planned and deliberate process to collect accurate and valid data. 

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to conduct interviews in qualitative research, broken down into three stages:

1. Before the interview

The first step in conducting a qualitative interview is determining your research question . This will help you identify the type of participants you need to recruit . Once you have your research question, you can start recruiting participants by identifying potential candidates and contacting them to gauge their interest in participating in the study. 

After that, it's time to develop your interview questions. These should be open-ended questions that will elicit detailed responses from participants. You'll also need to get consent from the participants, ideally in writing, to ensure that they understand the purpose of the study and their rights as participants. Finally, choose a comfortable and private location to conduct the interview and prepare the interview guide.

2. During the interview

Start by introducing yourself and explaining the purpose of the study. Establish a rapport by putting the participants at ease and making them feel comfortable. Use the interview guide to ask the questions, but be flexible and ask follow-up questions to gain more insight into the participants' responses. 

Take notes during the interview, and ask permission to record the interview for transcription purposes. Be mindful of the time, and cover all the questions in the interview guide.

3. After the interview

Once the interview is over, transcribe the interview if you recorded it. If you took notes, review and organize them to make sure you capture all the important information. Then, analyze the data you collected by identifying common themes and patterns. Use the findings to answer your research question. 

Finally, debrief with the participants to thank them for their time, provide feedback on the study, and answer any questions they may have.

Free AI content analysis generator

Make sense of your research by automatically summarizing key takeaways through our free content analysis tool.

• What kinds of questions should you ask in a qualitative interview?

Qualitative interviews involve asking questions that encourage participants to share their experiences, opinions, and perspectives on a particular topic. These questions are designed to elicit detailed and nuanced responses rather than simple yes or no answers.

Effective questions in a qualitative interview are generally open-ended and non-leading. They avoid presuppositions or assumptions about the participant's experience and allow them to share their views in their own words. 

In customer research , you might ask questions such as:

What motivated you to choose our product/service over our competitors?

How did you first learn about our product/service?

Can you walk me through your experience with our product/service?

What improvements or changes would you suggest for our product/service?

Have you recommended our product/service to others, and if so, why?

The key is to ask questions relevant to the research topic and allow participants to share their experiences meaningfully and informally. 

• How to determine the right qualitative interview participants

Choosing the right participants for a qualitative interview is a crucial step in ensuring the success and validity of the research . You need to consider several factors to determine the right participants for a qualitative interview. These may include:

Relevant experiences : Participants should have experiences related to the research topic that can provide valuable insights.

Diversity : Aim to include diverse participants to ensure the study's findings are representative and inclusive.

Access : Identify participants who are accessible and willing to participate in the study.

Informed consent : Participants should be fully informed about the study's purpose, methods, and potential risks and benefits and be allowed to provide informed consent.

You can use various recruitment methods, such as posting ads in relevant forums, contacting community organizations or social media groups, or using purposive sampling to identify participants who meet specific criteria.

• How to make qualitative interview subjects comfortable

Making participants comfortable during a qualitative interview is essential to obtain rich, detailed data. Participants are more likely to share their experiences openly when they feel at ease and not judged. 

Here are some ways to make interview subjects comfortable:

Explain the purpose of the study

Start the interview by explaining the research topic and its importance. The goal is to give participants a sense of what to expect.

Create a comfortable environment

Conduct the interview in a quiet, private space where the participant feels comfortable. Turn off any unnecessary electronics that can create distractions. Ensure your equipment works well ahead of time. Arrive at the interview on time. If you conduct a remote interview, turn on your camera and mute all notetakers and observers.

Build rapport

Greet the participant warmly and introduce yourself. Show interest in their responses and thank them for their time.

Use open-ended questions

Ask questions that encourage participants to elaborate on their thoughts and experiences.

Listen attentively

Resist the urge to multitask . Pay attention to the participant's responses, nod your head, or make supportive comments to show you’re interested in their answers. Avoid interrupting them.

Avoid judgment

Show respect and don't judge the participant's views or experiences. Allow the participant to speak freely without feeling judged or ridiculed.

Offer breaks

If needed, offer breaks during the interview, especially if the topic is sensitive or emotional.

Creating a comfortable environment and establishing rapport with the participant fosters an atmosphere of trust and encourages open communication. This helps participants feel at ease and willing to share their experiences.

• How to analyze a qualitative interview

Analyzing a qualitative interview involves a systematic process of examining the data collected to identify patterns, themes, and meanings that emerge from the responses. 

Here are some steps on how to analyze a qualitative interview:

1. Transcription

The first step is transcribing the interview into text format to have a written record of the conversation. This step is essential to ensure that you can refer back to the interview data and identify the important aspects of the interview.

2. Data reduction

Once you’ve transcribed the interview, read through it to identify key themes, patterns, and phrases emerging from the data. This process involves reducing the data into more manageable pieces you can easily analyze.

The next step is to code the data by labeling sections of the text with descriptive words or phrases that reflect the data's content. Coding helps identify key themes and patterns from the interview data.

4. Categorization

After coding, you should group the codes into categories based on their similarities. This process helps to identify overarching themes or sub-themes that emerge from the data.

5. Interpretation

You should then interpret the themes and sub-themes by identifying relationships, contradictions, and meanings that emerge from the data. Interpretation involves analyzing the themes in the context of the research question .

6. Comparison

The next step is comparing the data across participants or groups to identify similarities and differences. This step helps to ensure that the findings aren’t just specific to one participant but can be generalized to the wider population.

7. Triangulation

To ensure the findings are valid and reliable, you should use triangulation by comparing the findings with other sources, such as observations or interview data.

8. Synthesis

The final step is synthesizing the findings by summarizing the key themes and presenting them clearly and concisely. This step involves writing a report that presents the findings in a way that is easy to understand, using quotes and examples from the interview data to illustrate the themes.

• Tips for transcribing a qualitative interview

Transcribing a qualitative interview is a crucial step in the research process. It involves converting the audio or video recording of the interview into written text. 

Here are some tips for transcribing a qualitative interview:

Use transcription software

Transcription software can save time and increase accuracy by automatically transcribing audio or video recordings.

Listen carefully

When manually transcribing, listen carefully to the recording to ensure clarity. Pause and rewind the recording as necessary.

Use appropriate formatting

Use a consistent format for transcribing, such as marking pauses, overlaps, and interruptions. Indicate non-verbal cues such as laughter, sighs, or changes in tone.

Edit for clarity

Edit the transcription to ensure clarity and readability. Use standard grammar and punctuation, correct misspellings, and remove filler words like "um" and "ah."

Proofread and edit

Verify the accuracy of the transcription by listening to the recording again and reviewing the notes taken during the interview.

Use timestamps

Add timestamps to the transcription to reference specific interview sections.

Transcribing a qualitative interview can be time-consuming, but it’s essential to ensure the accuracy of the data collected. Following these tips can produce high-quality transcriptions useful for analysis and reporting.

• Why are interview techniques in qualitative research effective?

Unlike quantitative research methods, which rely on numerical data, qualitative research seeks to understand the richness and complexity of human experiences and perspectives. 

Interview techniques involve asking open-ended questions that allow participants to express their views and share their stories in their own words. This approach can help researchers to uncover unexpected or surprising insights that may not have been discovered through other research methods.

Interview techniques also allow researchers to establish rapport with participants, creating a comfortable and safe space for them to share their experiences. This can lead to a deeper level of trust and candor, leading to more honest and authentic responses.

• What are the weaknesses of qualitative interviews?

Qualitative interviews are an excellent research approach when used properly, but they have their drawbacks. 

The weaknesses of qualitative interviews include the following:

Subjectivity and personal biases

Qualitative interviews rely on the researcher's interpretation of the interviewee's responses. The researcher's biases or preconceptions can affect how the questions are framed and how the responses are interpreted, which can influence results.

Small sample size

The sample size in qualitative interviews is often small, which can limit the generalizability of the results to the larger population.

Data quality

The quality of data collected during interviews can be affected by various factors, such as the interviewee's mood, the setting of the interview, and the interviewer's skills and experience.

Socially desirable responses

Interviewees may provide responses that they believe are socially acceptable rather than truthful or genuine.

Conducting qualitative interviews can be expensive, especially if the researcher must travel to different locations to conduct the interviews.

Time-consuming

The data analysis process can be time-consuming and labor-intensive, as researchers need to transcribe and analyze the data manually.

Despite these weaknesses, qualitative interviews remain a valuable research tool . You can take steps to mitigate the impact of these weaknesses by incorporating the perspectives of other researchers or participants in the analysis process, using multiple data sources , and critically analyzing your biases and assumptions.

Mastering the art of qualitative interviews is an essential skill for businesses looking to gain deep insights into their customers' needs , preferences, and behaviors. By following the tips and best practices outlined in this article, you can conduct interviews that provide you with rich data that you can use to make informed decisions about your products, services, and marketing strategies. 

Remember that effective communication, active listening, and proper analysis are critical components of successful qualitative interviews. By incorporating these practices into your customer research, you can gain a competitive edge and build stronger customer relationships.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 9 November 2024

Last updated: 14 July 2023

Last updated: 30 January 2024

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 12 October 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 31 January 2024

Last updated: 23 January 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, a whole new way to understand your customer is here, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

The Guide to Interview Analysis

• What is Interview Analysis?
• Advantages of Interviews in Research
• Disadvantages of Interviews in Research
• Ethical Considerations in Interviews
• Preparing a Research Interview
• Recruitment & Sampling for Research Interviews
• Interview Design
• How to Formulate Interview Questions
• Rapport in Interviews
• Social Desirability Bias
• Interviewer Effect
• Types of Research Interviews
• Face-to-Face Interviews
• Focus Group Interviews
• Email Interviews

Introduction

Advantages of phone interviews over other interview methods, challenges in phone interviews.

• How to conduct a phone interview
• Stimulated Recall Interviews
• Interviews vs. Surveys
• Interviews vs Questionnaires
• Interviews and Interrogations
• How to Transcribe Interviews?
• Verbatim Transcription
• Clean Interview Transcriptions
• Manual Interview Transcription
• Automated Interview Transcription
• How to Annotate Research Interviews?
• Formatting and Anonymizing Interviews
• Analyzing Interviews
• Coding Interviews
• Reporting & Presenting Interview Findings

Telephone Interviews

Unlike in-person interview s, which often require logistical planning and travel, telephone interviews offer an opportunity to reach participants across geographical boundaries, enabling researchers to gather diverse perspectives. It's important to weigh the advantages and limitations of telephone interviews and understand how they fit within the broader spectrum of qualitative data collection methods. This article delves into the advantages and challenges of conducting telephone interviews and provides a guide for effectively executing them.

Telephone interviews provide a unique opportunity for qualitative researchers to access participants who may be difficult to reach through in-person methods. This is especially relevant in areas like social science, public health, and clinical nursing research, where researchers often need to gather data from diverse populations scattered across different locations. By removing the need for physical presence, telephone interviews allow researchers to expand their recruitment pool, engage with participants from remote or rural areas, and collect data from individuals with mobility limitations or other health-related constraints.

In addition to their logistical advantages, telephone interviews are a cost-effective alternative to in-person interviews, eliminating the expenses associated with travel, venue booking, and equipment. For market research, where time and resources are often limited, telephone surveys and interviews offer a streamlined approach to gathering consumer insights across large geographic areas without incurring significant costs. This method is well-suited to exploratory studies where rapid data collection is required to guide decision-making.

However, conducting qualitative research over the phone requires careful consideration of the challenges that arise in the absence of face-to-face interaction. The lack of non-verbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions, presents a unique challenge for interviewers who rely on these signals to gauge participant emotions, hesitations, or enthusiasm. Establishing rapport and trust over the phone can also be more difficult, especially when discussing sensitive or personal topics . As a result, researchers must adapt their techniques to compensate for these limitations and ensure the quality of the data collected remains high.

Phone interviews offer several unique advantages over other interview methods, such as face-to-face interviews , online surveys, and web-based interviews. One of the key benefits is their flexibility , as researchers can easily arrange calls to suit both the interviewer and participant's schedules. This flexibility makes telephone interviews particularly useful for recruiting participants from different regions or those unable to meet in person.

Telephone interviews also reduce logistical costs , eliminating the need for travel or venue arrangements. For market research and exploratory qualitative research, this is especially beneficial, as companies can conduct telephone surveys or interviews to gather insights without the financial burden of in-person data collection. Businesses conducting market research frequently use phone surveys to gather consumer feedback across regions, speeding up the data collection process.

Another advantage lies in the perceived anonymity of phone interviews. Participants often feel less scrutinized when not physically present, which can encourage openness, especially when discussing sensitive topics . In research studies focused on mental health or personal issues, participants may find it easier to disclose details over the phone than in person.

Telephone interviews can also be less prone to interviewer bias . In face-to-face interviews , subtle non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions or body language, can unintentionally influence participant responses. Telephone calls remove visual cues, allowing the focus to remain purely on verbal content.

Lastly, telephone interviews offer a faster alternative to in-person interviews, reducing the time needed for data collection . For projects where timelines may be tight, telephone interviews can speed up the research process , ensuring timely results while maintaining data quality.

Despite their many advantages, phone interviews also come with inherent challenges. While in some cases it can be an advantage, one major limitation is the lack of non-verbal communication, such as body language and facial expressions. These visual cues often help interviewers assess participants' emotions or reactions, providing a deeper understanding of their responses. In phone interviews, researchers must rely solely on verbal responses, which can sometimes lead to incomplete data interpretations. For instance, in a study on patient experiences in healthcare settings, face-to-face encounters might reveal subtle discomfort through body language, which a telephone interview would miss.

Another challenge is establishing rapport with participants. In in-person interviews, the physical presence of the interviewer helps create a personal connection, which fosters trust and encourages participants to share more openly. Over the phone, researchers must work harder to develop rapport through tone of voice, active listening, and empathy. This can be particularly challenging when discussing sensitive topics , where the physical distance might make participants feel disconnected from the interview process.

Telephone interviews can also lead to lower data quality in some cases. Some researchers have noted that participants tend to give shorter, less detailed responses during phone interviews compared to in-person interviews. This may be due to the lack of visual interaction or the nature of the phone call, which participants may perceive as less formal. Moreover, without non-verbal feedback, interviewers might struggle to probe effectively, missing opportunities to explore key themes or topics in greater depth.

The absence of visual cues can also lead to difficulties interpreting emotions or gauging when a participant is hesitant or confused. Skilled interviewers can sometimes mitigate this by paying close attention to verbal cues such as pauses, tone shifts, or changes in pace, but this requires training and experience. For instance, in qualitative research interviews exploring personal identity or trauma, missing such nuances could result in data that lacks depth.

Additionally, response rates for telephone interviews can sometimes be lower than for other methods, particularly when compared to face-to-face or internet-based interviews. Potential participants may be less inclined to commit to a phone interview, perceiving it as more intrusive or time-consuming. Qualitative researchers often face challenges in recruiting participants for such interviews, especially in studies requiring a diverse sample.

Interviewers may also face technical difficulties such as poor audio that can lead to misunderstanding answers or losing signal during an interview if the interviewee is in a remote location. These technical difficulties can be avoided by planning and having a backup plan in case any technical issue arises.

Conducting a phone interview requires careful planning, preparation, and skilled interviewing techniques to maximize data quality. The following steps provide a guide for researchers looking to conduct effective telephone interviews:

Preparation

Begin by thoroughly researching the participant demographic and tailoring your questions accordingly. Ensure that your interview questions align with the research objectives and are designed to elicit in-depth responses. For example, in a study exploring patient satisfaction in clinical nursing research, questions should focus on the qualitative aspects of patient experiences rather than quantitative measures.

Develop rapport

Establishing rapport is crucial, particularly over the phone where visual interaction is absent. Begin the interview with an introduction that explains the purpose of the research and emphasizes the participant's valuable role. Use a warm and friendly tone to make participants feel comfortable. As the interview progresses, continue to actively listen and respond to the participant’s answers to maintain a conversational flow.

Active listening and follow-up questions

Active listening is key to successful phone interviews. Pay close attention to the participant's tone and wording, as these are the only cues available to gauge their emotions or hesitations. Use probing questions or clarifications to dive deeper into their responses. For instance, in social science research, where exploring cultural beliefs or social behaviours is important, asking follow-up questions helps uncover underlying themes or contextual data.

Minimize distractions

Conduct interviews in a quiet environment where external noises won’t interfere with the conversation. Inform participants in advance that the interview will be conducted via phone, and encourage them to find a quiet and private location for the call. Distractions on either end can interrupt the flow of the conversation and impact the depth of data collected.

Enhance your phone interviews with ATLAS.ti

Transform your transcriptions into key insights with our powerful tools. Download a free trial today.

Record and take detailed notes

Recording telephone interviews (with participant consent) ensures accuracy during data analysis. In addition, take detailed research notes during the interview, capturing key points and any verbal cues that may indicate emotion or emphasis. These notes are invaluable for contextualizing responses later during the qualitative analysis phase. For instance, in qualitative research interviews on workplace dynamics, certain themes may only become apparent when reviewing these notes in detail.

Build in time for probing

Unlike in-person interviews, probing during phone interviews requires extra effort since verbal cues are all that are available. Build extra time into your interview schedule for follow-up questions to clarify or expand on participant responses.

Conclude thoughtfully

At the end of the interview, thank the participant for their time and contributions. Summarize key points to confirm your understanding and allow them to clarify or add further information. Include closing questions such as "Is there anything else you want to add?" to make sure the participant has expressed everything they want to express. These closing questions may give insights into information that is important but was overlooked. They also make the participants feel heard.

Telephone interviews offer a flexible, cost-effective method for collecting qualitative data, making them a valuable tool in qualitative research. Despite the challenges of building rapport and navigating the absence of non-verbal cues, skilled interviewers can leverage active listening, thoughtful questioning, and careful preparation to gather rich data through this method. By understanding the strengths and limitations of telephone interviews, qualitative researchers can push methodological boundaries and expand the research scope , reaching diverse participants across different contexts. Whether exploring sensitive topics , conducting market research, or engaging in health studies, telephone interviews remain a practical and insightful approach in the qualitative research toolkit.

From analyzing transcripts to coding data ATLAS.ti helps at every step of your interviews

ATLAS.ti is there for you to excel in your analysis. See how with a free trial.

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• Product Demos
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories
• Artificial Intelligence

Market Research

• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management
• Qualitative Research
• Qualitative Research Interviews

Try Qualtrics for free

How to carry out great interviews in qualitative research.

11 min read An interview is one of the most versatile methods used in qualitative research. Here’s what you need to know about conducting great qualitative interviews.

What is a qualitative research interview?

Qualitative research interviews are a mainstay among q ualitative research techniques, and have been in use for decades either as a primary data collection method or as an adjunct to a wider research process. A qualitative research interview is a one-to-one data collection session between a researcher and a participant. Interviews may be carried out face-to-face, over the phone or via video call using a service like Skype or Zoom.

There are three main types of qualitative research interview – structured, unstructured or semi-structured.

• Structured interviews Structured interviews are based around a schedule of predetermined questions and talking points that the researcher has developed. At their most rigid, structured interviews may have a precise wording and question order, meaning that they can be replicated across many different interviewers and participants with relatively consistent results.
• Unstructured interviews Unstructured interviews have no predetermined format, although that doesn’t mean they’re ad hoc or unplanned. An unstructured interview may outwardly resemble a normal conversation, but the interviewer will in fact be working carefully to make sure the right topics are addressed during the interaction while putting the participant at ease with a natural manner.
• Semi-structured interviews Semi-structured interviews are the most common type of qualitative research interview, combining the informality and rapport of an unstructured interview with the consistency and replicability of a structured interview. The researcher will come prepared with questions and topics, but will not need to stick to precise wording. This blended approach can work well for in-depth interviews.

Free eBook: The qualitative research design handbook

What are the pros and cons of interviews in qualitative research?

As a qualitative research method interviewing is hard to beat, with applications in social research, market research, and even basic and clinical pharmacy. But like any aspect of the research process, it’s not without its limitations. Before choosing qualitative interviewing as your research method, it’s worth weighing up the pros and cons.

Pros of qualitative interviews:

• provide in-depth information and context
• can be used effectively when their are low numbers of participants
• provide an opportunity to discuss and explain questions
• useful for complex topics
• rich in data – in the case of in-person or video interviews , the researcher can observe body language and facial expression as well as the answers to questions

Cons of qualitative interviews:

• can be time-consuming to carry out
• costly when compared to some other research methods
• because of time and cost constraints, they often limit you to a small number of participants
• difficult to standardize your data across different researchers and participants unless the interviews are very tightly structured
• As the Open University of Hong Kong notes, qualitative interviews may take an emotional toll on interviewers

Qualitative interview guides

Semi-structured interviews are based on a qualitative interview guide, which acts as a road map for the researcher. While conducting interviews, the researcher can use the interview guide to help them stay focused on their research questions and make sure they cover all the topics they intend to.

An interview guide may include a list of questions written out in full, or it may be a set of bullet points grouped around particular topics. It can prompt the interviewer to dig deeper and ask probing questions during the interview if appropriate.

Consider writing out the project’s research question at the top of your interview guide, ahead of the interview questions. This may help you steer the interview in the right direction if it threatens to head off on a tangent.

Avoid bias in qualitative research interviews

According to Duke University , bias can create significant problems in your qualitative interview.

• Acquiescence bias is common to many qualitative methods, including focus groups. It occurs when the participant feels obliged to say what they think the researcher wants to hear. This can be especially problematic when there is a perceived power imbalance between participant and interviewer. To counteract this, Duke University’s experts recommend emphasizing the participant’s expertise in the subject being discussed, and the value of their contributions.
• Interviewer bias is when the interviewer’s own feelings about the topic come to light through hand gestures, facial expressions or turns of phrase. Duke’s recommendation is to stick to scripted phrases where this is an issue, and to make sure researchers become very familiar with the interview guide or script before conducting interviews, so that they can hone their delivery.

What kinds of questions should you ask in a qualitative interview?

The interview questions you ask need to be carefully considered both before and during the data collection process. As well as considering the topics you’ll cover, you will need to think carefully about the way you ask questions.

Open-ended interview questions – which cannot be answered with a ‘yes’ ‘no’ or ‘maybe’ – are recommended by many researchers as a way to pursue in depth information.

An example of an open-ended question is “What made you want to move to the East Coast?” This will prompt the participant to consider different factors and select at least one. Having thought about it carefully, they may give you more detailed information about their reasoning.

A closed-ended question , such as “Would you recommend your neighborhood to a friend?” can be answered without too much deliberation, and without giving much information about personal thoughts, opinions and feelings.

Follow-up questions can be used to delve deeper into the research topic and to get more detail from open-ended questions. Examples of follow-up questions include:

• What makes you say that?
• What do you mean by that?
• Can you tell me more about X?
• What did/does that mean to you?

As well as avoiding closed-ended questions, be wary of leading questions. As with other qualitative research techniques such as surveys or focus groups, these can introduce bias in your data. Leading questions presume a certain point of view shared by the interviewer and participant, and may even suggest a foregone conclusion.

An example of a leading question might be: “You moved to New York in 1990, didn’t you?” In answering the question, the participant is much more likely to agree than disagree. This may be down to acquiescence bias or a belief that the interviewer has checked the information and already knows the correct answer.

Other leading questions involve adjectival phrases or other wording that introduces negative or positive connotations about a particular topic. An example of this kind of leading question is: “Many employees dislike wearing masks to work. How do you feel about this?” It presumes a positive opinion and the participant may be swayed by it, or not want to contradict the interviewer.

Harvard University’s guidelines for qualitative interview research add that you shouldn’t be afraid to ask embarrassing questions – “if you don’t ask, they won’t tell.” Bear in mind though that too much probing around sensitive topics may cause the interview participant to withdraw. The Harvard guidelines recommend leaving sensitive questions til the later stages of the interview when a rapport has been established.

More tips for conducting qualitative interviews

Observing a participant’s body language can give you important data about their thoughts and feelings. It can also help you decide when to broach a topic, and whether to use a follow-up question or return to the subject later in the interview.

Be conscious that the participant may regard you as the expert, not themselves. In order to make sure they express their opinions openly, use active listening skills like verbal encouragement and paraphrasing and clarifying their meaning to show how much you value what they are saying.

Remember that part of the goal is to leave the interview participant feeling good about volunteering their time and their thought process to your research. Aim to make them feel empowered , respected and heard.

Unstructured interviews can demand a lot of a researcher, both cognitively and emotionally. Be sure to leave time in between in-depth interviews when scheduling your data collection to make sure you maintain the quality of your data, as well as your own well-being .

Recording and transcribing interviews

Historically, recording qualitative research interviews and then transcribing the conversation manually would have represented a significant part of the cost and time involved in research projects that collect qualitative data.

Fortunately, researchers now have access to digital recording tools, and even speech-to-text technology that can automatically transcribe interview data using AI and machine learning. This type of tool can also be used to capture qualitative data from qualitative research (focus groups,ect.) making this kind of social research or market research much less time consuming.

Data analysis

Qualitative interview data is unstructured, rich in content and difficult to analyze without the appropriate tools. Fortunately, machine learning and AI can once again make things faster and easier when you use qualitative methods like the research interview.

Text analysis tools and natural language processing software can ‘read’ your transcripts and voice data and identify patterns and trends across large volumes of text or speech. They can also perform khttps://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/sentiment-analysis/

which assesses overall trends in opinion and provides an unbiased overall summary of how participants are feeling.

Another feature of text analysis tools is their ability to categorize information by topic, sorting it into groupings that help you organize your data according to the topic discussed.

All in all, interviews are a valuable technique for qualitative research in business, yielding rich and detailed unstructured data. Historically, they have only been limited by the human capacity to interpret and communicate results and conclusions, which demands considerable time and skill.

When you combine this data with AI tools that can interpret it quickly and automatically, it becomes easy to analyze and structure, dovetailing perfectly with your other business data. An additional benefit of natural language analysis tools is that they are free of subjective biases, and can replicate the same approach across as much data as you choose. By combining human research skills with machine analysis, qualitative research methods such as interviews are more valuable than ever to your business.

Related resources

Mixed methods research 17 min read.

Analysis & Reporting

Data Saturation In Qualitative Research 8 min read

Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, thematic analysis 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?