research instrument using interview

Chapter 11. Interviewing

Introduction.

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

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

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

Types of Interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating an Interview Guide

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

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

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

Researcher Note

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

Type of Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background/Demographic Questions

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

Temporality

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

Question Sequence

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

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

Probes and Flexibility

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

The Final Question

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

Conducting the Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Many Interviews?

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

Your Final Product: The Ideal Interview Transcript

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

Final Tips from an Interview Master

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

Sample: Demographic Questionnaire

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

Supplementary Demographic Questionnaire

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

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

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

What is your current position?

• Grad Student
• Full Professor

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

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

What best reflects your gender?

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

Anything else you would like us to know about you?

Example: Interview Guide

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

Introduction Script/Question

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

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

Further Readings

Britten, Nicky. 1995. “Qualitative Interviews in Medical Research.” BMJ: British Medical Journal 31(6999):251–253. A good basic overview of interviewing particularly useful for students of public health and medical research generally.

Corbin, Juliet, and Janice M. Morse. 2003. “The Unstructured Interactive Interview: Issues of Reciprocity and Risks When Dealing with Sensitive Topics.” Qualitative Inquiry 9(3):335–354. Weighs the potential benefits and harms of conducting interviews on topics that may cause emotional distress. Argues that the researcher’s skills and code of ethics should ensure that the interviewing process provides more of a benefit to both participant and researcher than a harm to the former.

Gerson, Kathleen, and Sarah Damaske. 2020. The Science and Art of Interviewing . New York: Oxford University Press. A useful guidebook/textbook for both undergraduates and graduate students, written by sociologists.

Kvale, Steiner. 2007. Doing Interviews . London: SAGE. An easy-to-follow guide to conducting and analyzing interviews by psychologists.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. “Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing.” Qualitative Sociology 37(2):153–171. Written as a response to various debates surrounding the relative value of interview-based studies and ethnographic studies defending the particular strengths of interviewing. This is a must-read article for anyone seriously engaging in qualitative research!

Pugh, Allison J. 2013. “What Good Are Interviews for Thinking about Culture? Demystifying Interpretive Analysis.” American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1(1):42–68. Another defense of interviewing written against those who champion ethnographic methods as superior, particularly in the area of studying culture. A classic.

Rapley, Timothy John. 2001. “The ‘Artfulness’ of Open-Ended Interviewing: Some considerations in analyzing interviews.” Qualitative Research 1(3):303–323. Argues for the importance of “local context” of data production (the relationship built between interviewer and interviewee, for example) in properly analyzing interview data.

Weiss, Robert S. 1995. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies . New York: Simon and Schuster. A classic and well-regarded textbook on interviewing. Because Weiss has extensive experience conducting surveys, he contrasts the qualitative interview with the survey questionnaire well; particularly useful for those trained in the latter.

• I say “normally” because how people understand their various identities can itself be an expansive topic of inquiry. Here, I am merely talking about collecting otherwise unexamined demographic data, similar to how we ask people to check boxes on surveys. ↵
• Again, this applies to “semistructured in-depth interviewing.” When conducting standardized questionnaires, you will want to ask each question exactly as written, without deviations! ↵
• I always include “INT” in the number because I sometimes have other kinds of data with their own numbering: FG#001 would mean the first focus group, for example. I also always include three-digit spaces, as this allows for up to 999 interviews (or, more realistically, allows for me to interview up to one hundred persons without having to reset my numbering system). ↵

A method of data collection in which the researcher asks the participant questions; the answers to these questions are often recorded and transcribed verbatim. There are many different kinds of interviews - see also semistructured interview , structured interview , and unstructured interview .

A document listing key questions and question areas for use during an interview.  It is used most often for semi-structured interviews.  A good interview guide may have no more than ten primary questions for two hours of interviewing, but these ten questions will be supplemented by probes and relevant follow-ups throughout the interview.  Most IRBs require the inclusion of the interview guide in applications for review.  See also interview and  semi-structured interview .

A data-collection method that relies on casual, conversational, and informal interviewing.  Despite its apparent conversational nature, the researcher usually has a set of particular questions or question areas in mind but allows the interview to unfold spontaneously.  This is a common data-collection technique among ethnographers.  Compare to the semi-structured or in-depth interview .

A form of interview that follows a standard guide of questions asked, although the order of the questions may change to match the particular needs of each individual interview subject, and probing “follow-up” questions are often added during the course of the interview.  The semi-structured interview is the primary form of interviewing used by qualitative researchers in the social sciences.  It is sometimes referred to as an “in-depth” interview.  See also interview and  interview guide .

The cluster of data-collection tools and techniques that involve observing interactions between people, the behaviors, and practices of individuals (sometimes in contrast to what they say about how they act and behave), and cultures in context.  Observational methods are the key tools employed by ethnographers and Grounded Theory .

Follow-up questions used in a semi-structured interview  to elicit further elaboration.  Suggested prompts can be included in the interview guide  to be used/deployed depending on how the initial question was answered or if the topic of the prompt does not emerge spontaneously.

A form of interview that follows a strict set of questions, asked in a particular order, for all interview subjects.  The questions are also the kind that elicits short answers, and the data is more “informative” than probing.  This is often used in mixed-methods studies, accompanying a survey instrument.  Because there is no room for nuance or the exploration of meaning in structured interviews, qualitative researchers tend to employ semi-structured interviews instead.  See also interview.

The point at which you can conclude data collection because every person you are interviewing, the interaction you are observing, or content you are analyzing merely confirms what you have already noted.  Achieving saturation is often used as the justification for the final sample size.

An interview variant in which a person’s life story is elicited in a narrative form.  Turning points and key themes are established by the researcher and used as data points for further analysis.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Topic Guides
• Research Methods Guide
• Interview Research

Research Methods Guide: Interview Research

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

Tutorial Videos: Interview Method

Interview as a Method for Qualitative Research

Goals of Interview Research

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

Mode of Data Collection

There are several types of interviews, including:

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

FAQ: Conducting Interview Research

What are the important steps involved in interviews?

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

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

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

Is training an interviewer important?

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

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

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 13: Interviews

Danielle Berkovic

Learning outcomes

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

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

What are interviews?

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

What are the different types of interviews?

There are four main types of interviews:

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

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

Interviewing techniques

There are two main interview techniques:

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

When to use the different types of interview s

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

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

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

How do I write my interview questions?

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

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

Table 13.1. Interview question formats to use and avoid

How long should my interview be?

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

Designing your interview guide

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

Table 13.2. Interview guide for a descriptive study

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

Table 13.3. Detailed interview guide

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

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

Setting up the interview

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

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

After your interview

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

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

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

Table 13.4. Examples of the four types of interviews

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

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

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

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples

Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on January 27, 2022 by Tegan George and Julia Merkus. Revised on June 22, 2023.

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. It is one of four types of interviews .

In research, structured interviews are often quantitative in nature. They can also be used in qualitative research if the questions are open-ended, but this is less common.

While structured interviews are often associated with job interviews, they are also common in marketing, social science, survey methodology, and other research fields.

• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, whereas the other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Table of contents

What is a structured interview, when to use a structured interview, advantages of structured interviews, disadvantages of structured interviews, structured interview questions, how to conduct a structured interview, how to analyze a structured interview, presenting your results, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about structured interviews.

Structured interviews are the most systematized type of interview. In contrast to semi-structured or unstructured interviews, the interviewer uses predetermined questions in a set order.

Structured interviews are often closed-ended. They can be dichotomous, which means asking participants to answer “yes” or “no” to each question, or multiple-choice. While open-ended structured interviews do exist, they are less common.

Asking set questions in a set order allows you to easily compare responses between participants in a uniform context. This can help you see patterns and highlight areas for further research, and it can be a useful explanatory or exploratory research tool.

Structured interviews are best used when:

• You already have a very clear understanding of your topic, so you possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
• You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyze your data efficiently.
• Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant.

A structured interview is straightforward to conduct and analyze. Asking the same set of questions mitigates potential biases and leads to fewer ambiguities in analysis. It is an undertaking you can likely handle as an individual, provided you remain organized.

Differences between different types of interviews

Make sure to choose the type of interview that suits your research best. This table shows the most important differences between the four types.

Reduced bias

Increased credibility, reliability and validity, simple, cost-effective and efficient, formal in nature, limited flexibility, limited scope.

It can be difficult to write structured interview questions that approximate exactly what you are seeking to measure. Here are a few tips for writing questions that contribute to high internal validity :

• Define exactly what you want to discover prior to drafting your questions. This will help you write questions that really zero in on participant responses.
• Avoid jargon, compound sentences, and complicated constructions.
• Be as clear and concise as possible, so that participants can answer your question immediately.
• Do you think that employers should provide free gym memberships?
• Did any of your previous employers provide free memberships?
• Does your current employer provide a free membership?
• a) 1 time; b) 2 times; c) 3 times; d) 4 or more times
• Do you enjoy going to the gym?

Structured interviews are among the most straightforward research methods to conduct and analyze. Once you’ve determined that they’re the right fit for your research topic , you can proceed with the following steps.

Step 1: Set your goals and objectives

Start with brainstorming some guiding questions to help you conceptualize your research question, such as:

• What are you trying to learn or achieve from a structured interview?
• Why are you choosing a structured interview as opposed to a different type of interview, or another research method?

If you have satisfying reasoning for proceeding with a structured interview, you can move on to designing your questions.

Step 2: Design your questions

Pay special attention to the order and wording of your structured interview questions . Remember that in a structured interview they must remain the same. Stick to closed-ended or very simple open-ended questions.

Step 3: Assemble your participants

Depending on your topic, there are a few sampling methods you can use, such as:

• Voluntary response sampling : For example, posting a flyer on campus and finding participants based on responses
• Convenience sampling of those who are most readily accessible to you, such as fellow students at your university
• Stratified sampling of a particular age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other characteristic of interest to you
• Judgment sampling of a specific set of participants that you already know you want to include

Step 4: Decide on your medium

Determine whether you will be conducting your interviews in person or whether your interview will take pen-and-paper format. If conducted live, you need to decide if you prefer to talk with participants in person, over the phone, or via video conferencing.

Step 5: Conduct your interviews

As you conduct your interviews, be very careful that all conditions remain as constant as possible.

• Ask your questions in the same order, and try to moderate your tone of voice and any responses to participants as much as you can.
• Pay special attention to your body language (e.g., nodding, raising eyebrows), as this can bias responses.

After you’re finished conducting your interviews, it’s time to analyze your results.

• Assign each of your participants a number or pseudonym for organizational purposes.
• Transcribe the recordings manually or with the help of transcription software.
• Conduct a content or thematic analysis to look for categories or patterns of responses. In most cases, it’s also possible to conduct a statistical analysis to test your hypotheses .

Transcribing interviews

If you have audio-recorded your interviews, you will likely have to transcribe them prior to conducting your analysis. In some cases, your supervisor might ask you to add the transcriptions in the appendix of your paper.

First, you will have to decide whether to conduct verbatim transcription or intelligent verbatim transcription. Do pauses, laughter, or filler words like “umm” or “like” affect your analysis and research conclusions?

• If so, conduct verbatim transcription and include them.
• If not, conduct intelligent verbatim transcription, which excludes fillers and fixes any grammar issues, and is often easier to analyze.

The transcription process is a great opportunity for you to cleanse your data as well, spotting and resolving any inconsistencies or errors that come up as you listen.

Coding and analyzing structured interviews

After transcribing, it’s time to conduct your thematic or content analysis . This often involves “coding” words, patterns, or themes, separating them into categories for more robust analysis.

Due to the closed-ended nature of many structured interviews, you will most likely be conducting content analysis, rather than thematic analysis.

• You quantify the categories you chose in the coding stage by counting the occurrence of the words, phrases, subjects or concepts you selected.
• After coding, you can organize and summarize the data using descriptive statistics .
• Next, inferential statistics allows you to come to conclusions about your hypotheses and make predictions for future research. 

When conducting content analysis, you can take an inductive or a deductive approach. With an inductive approach, you allow the data to determine your themes. A deductive approach is the opposite, and involves investigating whether your data confirm preconceived themes or ideas.

Content analysis has a systematic procedure that can easily be replicated , yielding high reliability to your results. However, keep in mind that while this approach reduces bias, it doesn’t eliminate it. Be vigilant about remaining objective here, even if your analysis does not confirm your hypotheses .

After your data analysis, the next step is to combine your findings into a research paper .

• Your methodology section describes how you collected the data (in this case, describing your structured interview process) and explains how you justify or conceptualize your analysis.
• Your discussion and results sections usually address each of your coded categories, describing each in turn, as well as how often they occurred.

If you conducted inferential statistics in addition to descriptive statistics, you would generally report the test statistic , p -value , and effect size in your results section. These values explain whether your results justify rejecting your null hypothesis and whether the result is practically significant .

You can then conclude with the main takeaways and avenues for further research.

Example of interview methodology for a research paper

Let’s say you are interested in healthcare on your campus. You attend a large public institution with a lot of international students, and you think there may be a difference in perceptions based on country of origin.

Specifically, you hypothesize that students coming from countries with single-payer or socialized healthcare will find US options less satisfying.

There is a large body of research available on this topic, so you decide to conduct structured interviews of your peers to see if there’s a difference between international students and local students.

You are a member of a large campus club that brings together international students and local students, and you send a message to the club to ask for volunteers.

Here are some questions you could ask:

• Do you find healthcare options on campus to be: excellent; good; fair; average; poor?
• Does your home country have socialized healthcare? Yes/No
• Are you on the campus healthcare plan? Yes/No
• Have you ever worried about your health insurance? Yes/No
• Have you ever had a serious health condition that insurance did not cover? Yes/No
• Have you ever been surprised or shocked by a medical bill? Yes/No

After conducting your interviews and transcribing your data, you can then conduct content analysis, coding responses into different categories. Since you began your research with the theory that international students may find US healthcare lacking, you would use the deductive approach to see if your hypotheses seem to hold true.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when: 

• You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
• You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyze your data quickly and efficiently.

More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. & Merkus, J. (2023, June 22). Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/structured-interview/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, semi-structured interview | definition, guide & examples, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples, what is a focus group | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Research Methodologies: Research Instruments

• Research Methodology Basics
• Research Instruments
• Types of Research Methodologies

Header Image

Types of Research Instruments

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

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

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

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

Data Collection

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

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

Anne e pezalla.

Pennsylvania State University, USA

Jonathan Pettigrew

Michelle miller-day.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Researcher-as-instrument

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

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

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

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

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

Gathering and analyzing empirical materials

The team-based qualitative research, participants.

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

Interview team

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

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

The present study: Three Voices in the Crowd

Interview sample.

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

Analysis procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Interviewer characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topics of discussion

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

Low threat topic: Rural living

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderate threat topic: Identity and future selves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons learned

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Biographies

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

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

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

Contributor Information

Anne E Pezalla, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Jonathan Pettigrew, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Michelle Miller-Day, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

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

Structured vs. unstructured interviews: A complete guide

Last updated

7 March 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

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

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

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

Analyze all kinds of interviews

Bring all your interviews into one place to analyze and understand

• What are structured interviews?

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

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

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

What types of questions suit structured interviews?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What types of structured interviews are there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What are some common examples of structured interviews?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What do you need to conduct a structured interview?

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

A participant

An interviewer

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

A recording device

A consent form

A list of interview questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How to conduct a structured interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What are other common types of interviews?

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

Semi-structured interviews

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

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

Unstructured interviews

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

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

Focus group interviews

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

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

What is a structured vs. an unstructured interview?

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

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

What are the advantages of a structured interview?

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

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

What is an example of a structured question?

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

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

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: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 7 March 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 11: Quantitative Interview Techniques & Considerations

11.1 Conducting Quantitative Interviews

Much of what we learned in the previous chapter on survey research applies to quantitative interviews as well. In fact, quantitative interviews are sometimes referred to as survey interviews because they resemble survey-style question-and-answer formats. They might also be called standardized interviews . The difference between surveys and standardized interviews is that questions and answer options are read to respondents in a standardized interview, rather than having respondents complete a survey on their own. As with surveys, the questions posed in a standardized interview tend to be closed-ended. There are instances in which a quantitative interviewer might pose a few open-ended questions as well. In these cases, the coding process works somewhat differently than coding in-depth interview data. We will describe this process in the following section.

In quantitative interviews, an interview schedule is used to guide the researcher as he or she poses questions and answer options to respondents. An interview schedule is usually more rigid than an interview guide. It contains the list of questions and answer options that the researcher will read to respondents. Whereas qualitative researchers emphasize respondents’ roles in helping to determine how an interview progresses, in a quantitative interview, consistency in the way that questions and answer options are presented is very important. The aim is to pose every question-and-answer option in the very same way to every respondent. This is done to minimize interviewer effect, or possible changes in the way an interviewee responds based on how or when questions and answer options are presented by the interviewer.

Quantitative interviews may be recorded, but because questions tend to be closed-ended, taking notes during the interview is less disruptive than it can be during a qualitative interview. If a quantitative interview contains open-ended questions, recording the interview is advised. It may also be helpful to record quantitative interviews if a researcher wishes to assess possible interview effect. Noticeable differences in responses might be more attributable to interviewer effect than to any real respondent differences. Having a recording of the interview can help a researcher make such determinations.

Quantitative interviewers are usually more concerned with gathering data from a large, representative sample. Collecting data from many people via interviews can be quite laborious. In the past, telephone interviewing was quite common; however, growth in the use of mobile phones has raised concern regarding whether or not traditional landline telephone interviews and surveys are now representative of the general population (Busse & Fuchs, 2012). Indeed, there are other drawbacks to telephone interviews. Aside from the obvious problem that not everyone has a phone (mobile or landline), research shows that phone interview respondents were less cooperative, less engaged in the interview, and more likely to express dissatisfaction with the length of the interview than were face-to-face respondents (Holbrook, Green, & Krosnick, 2003, p. 79). Holbrook et al.’s research also demonstrated that telephone respondents were more suspicious of the interview process and more likely than face-to-face respondents to present themselves in a socially desirable manner.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research Methodology in Education

• Get Edit Link
• The Writing Space
• Welcome Desk

March 7, 2016

• RESEARCH TOOLS: INTERVIEWS & QUESTIONNAIRES

Introduction

We will start with a few key operational definitions. ‘ Surveying ’ is the process by which the researcher collects data through a questionnaire (O’Leary, 2014). A ‘ questionnaire ’ is the instrument for collecting the primary data (Cohen, 2013). ‘ Primary data’ by extension is data that would not otherwise exist if it were not for the research process and is collected through both questionnaires or interviews, which we discuss here today (O’Leary, 2014). An ‘ interview ’ is typically a face-to-face conversation between a researcher and a participant involving a transfer of information to the interviewer (Cresswell, 2012). We will investigate each data collection instrument independently, starting with the interview.

Interviews are primarily done in qualitative research and occur when researchers ask one or more participants general, open-ended questions and record their answers. Often audiotapes are utilized to allow for more consistent transcription (Creswell, 2012). The researcher often transcribes and types the data into a computer file, in order to analyze it after interviewing. Interviews are particularly useful for uncovering the story behind a participant’s experiences and pursuing in-depth information around a topic. Interviews may be useful to follow-up with individual respondents after questionnaires, e.g., to further investigate their responses. (McNamara, 1999). In qualitative research specifically, interviews are used to pursue the meanings of central themes in the world of their subjects. The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say (McNamara, 2009). Usually open-ended questions are asked during interviews in hopes of obtaining impartial answers, while closed ended questions may force participants to answer in a particular way (Creswell, 2012; McNamara, 1999). An open-ended question gives participants more options for responding. For example an open-ended question may be, “How do you balance participation in athletics with your schoolwork (Creswell, 2012)”. A closed-ended question provides a preset response. For example, “Do you exercise?” where the answers are limited to yes or no (Cresswell, 2012).

Must-knows before the interview

Interviewer must be:

• Knowledgeable – familiar with the topic.
• Structured – outline the procedure of the interview.
• Clear – provide simple, easy and short questions which are spoken distinctly and understandably.
• Gentle – tolerant, sensitive and patient when receiving provocative and unconventional opinions.
• Steering – controlling the course of the interview to avoid digressions from the topic.
• Critical – testing the reliability and validity of the information that the interviewee offers.
• Remembering – retaining the information provided by the interviewee.
•  Interpreting – offering interpretation of what the interviewee says (Kvalve, 1996).

Different Types of Interviews

• One-on-one: Most time consuming, costly approach, but most common in educational research. Completed one participant at a time, and suitable for interview participants who are not hesitant to speak.
• Focus Group: Typically in groups of four to six.
• Telephone: Can be easy and fast, but usually only a small number of questions can be asked.
• E-Mail: Easy to complete and allows questions and answers to be well thought out. Ethical issues may need to be addressed.  For example, whether the researcher has received written permission from individuals before participating in the interview and the privacy of responses.
• Open-Ended Questions on Questionnaires (Creswell, 2012). Cresswell recommends using only open-ended questions during interviews, since they are primarily qualitative.

Structured Versus Unstructured

• The interviewer might consider a summary column at the end or to the side of your sheet in order to fill in additional information.
• Most interviews are a combination of structured and unstructured, allowing flexibility (Bell & Waters, 2014).
• The interviewer might consider recording the interview or informing the participant that they will be taking notes before starting.
• One type of unstructured interview is a ‘preliminary interview,’ where the interviewer is seeking areas or topics of significance for the interviewees (Bell & Waters, 2014).
• Focused interview: framework is established prior to the interview and recording / analysis are simplified. Flow between topics is uninterrupted or free flowing. (Bell & Waters, 2014).

Sequence of Questions

• Get the respondents involved in the interview as soon as possible.
• Before asking about controversial matters (such as feelings and conclusions), first ask about some facts.
• Intersperse fact-based questions throughout the interview.
• Ask questions about the present before questions about the past or future.
• The last questions might allow respondents to provide any extra information they consider to be relevant, as well as their impressions of the interview (McNamara, 1999).
• Questions must be worded with diligence.
• Questions should be asked one at a time.
• Wording should be open-ended. Respondents should have the opportunity to choose their own descriptive vocabulary while answering questions.
• Questions should be as neutral as possible.
• Questions should be worded clearly.
• Be wary of asking “why” questions. This type of question may encourage a participant to answer unnaturally or feel defensive (McNamara, 1999; Creswell, 2012).

Both Creswell and McNamara highlighted very similar points about conducting interviews. McNamara’s literature is less descriptive, but more simple and concise. Another author who has come up consistently in the interviewing literature is Kvalve, whose literature is much more intensive and broad. These three authors are all very prominent in the interview research literature.

Conducting the Interview

These are the steps that are consistent in the literature on conducting interviews in research (Creswell, 2012; McNamara, 1999):

• Identify the interviewees.
• Determine the type of interview you will use.
• During the interview, audiotape the questions and responses.
• Take brief notes during the interview.
• Locate a quiet, suitable place for the interview.
• Obtain consent from the interviewer to participate in the study.
• Have a plan, but be flexible.
• Use probes to obtain additional information.
• Be courteous and professional when the interview is over.
• Interviews provide useful information when participants cannot be directly observed.
• The interviewer has better control over the types of information that they receive. They can pick their own questions.
• If worded effectively, questions will encourage unbiased and truthful answers.
• The interviewee may provide biased information or be unreliable if only one interviewer is interpreting the information. The best research requires many different point of views.
• The interview answers may be deceptive because the interviewee tries to respond in a way that will please the interviewer.
• Equipment may be a problem. Equipment may be costly and require a high level of technical competence to use.
• Can be time-consuming and inexperienced interviewers may not be able to keep the questions properly focused.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires have many uses, most notably to discover what the masses are thinking.  These include: market research, political polling, customer service feedback, evaluations, opinion polls, and social science research (O’Leary, 2014).

Formulating a Questionnaire

Starting out.

Bell & Waters (2014) and O’Leary (2014), each offer clear checklists for creating a questionnaire from beginning to end. By comparing the two, we have created a comprehensive list. Bell starts by reminding the researcher to obtain approval prior to administering their questionnaire, then to reflect on what our question is and whether this is the best method to obtain the intended information (Bell & Waters, 2014). O’Leary (2014) suggests that you operationalize concepts in the beginning and define the measurable variables. Prior to writing your own questions, O’Leary (2014) would have you explore existing possibilities in order to adapt previous instruments rather than ‘reinventing the wheel’. At this point, both authors have you write your questions.

Forming questions

Bell & Waters (2014), utilizes Youngman (1982)’s Question Types:

• Verbal / Open

Bell & Waters (2014), highlight a plethora of potential difficulties in wording your questions, including ambiguity and imprecision, assumptions, memory, knowledge, double questions, leading questions, presuming questions, hypothetical questions, offensive questions, and questions covering sensitive issues. It is imperative that you check for jargon within your language and return to your hypothesis or objectives often to decide which questions are most pertinent (Bell & Waters, 2014).

Bell & Waters (2014) and O’Leary (2014) seem to disagree on the next step; while O’Leary would focus next on the response category, Bell would have you look further into the wording of the questions. Following O’Leary (2014)’s logic, we decide now whether to use open or closed questions, considering how the category will translate to different data types. Closed response answers include: yes/no, agree/disagree, fill in the blanks, choosing from a list, ordering options, and interval response scales. Any of the three standard scaling methods, (Likert, Guttman, and Thurstone) may be used where appropriate (O’Leary, 2014).

Bell & Waters (2014) suggest you check your wording at this point. O’Leary (2014) goes into detail to point out problems with questions such as ambiguity, leading, confronting, offensiveness, unwarranted assumptions, double-barrelled questions, or pretentiousness. Questions to avoid according to O’Leary are those that are:

• Poorly worded
• Biased, leading, or loaded
• Recall-dependent questions
• Offensive questions
• Questions with assumed knowledge
• Questions with unwarranted assumptions
• Questions with socially desirable responses.

Ordering Questions / Appearance and layout

Both authors emphasize thoughtfulness about the order of questions, considering logic and ease for respondents. O’Leary (2014) goes into further detail regarding issues with organization and length; too lengthy and respondents are less likely to complete the questionnaire. He also suggests researchers avoid asking threatening, awkward, insulting, or difficult questions, especially in the beginning of the questionnaire. Bell & Waters (2014) takes a more broad view of the aesthetics of the questionnaire; leaving spaces for legibility, limiting the overall numbers of pages, and considering the impression the document leaves, to highlight a few examples.

Write Instructions

Clear and unambiguous instructions for respondents are emphasized by both authors (O’Leary, 2014; Bell & Waters, 2014). This step is followed by a ‘layout’, or rearranging of questions, in both descriptions, likely because this is the best time to review once the questions and other writing is complete. O’Leary (2014) warns researchers to use professional and aesthetically-pleasing formatting, as well as to be organized in order to attract respondents and to lower the probability of making your own mistakes (in repeating questions, for example). O’Leary (2014) offers  final instructions to include a cover letter that describes who you are, the aim of the project, assurances of confidentiality, etc.. Bell & Waters (2014), however, offers further steps.

            Sample & Pilot Testing

Bell & Waters (2014) go into further detail regarding response rates and ensuring you have a representative or generalizable sample, which we believe is irrelevant to this article. More pertinent steps would be to pilot-test your questionnaire with preliminary respondents (even family and friends) and follow-through to preliminary data analysis in order to ensure your methods are effective, making adjustments accordingly (Bell & Waters, 2014).  O’Leary (2014) lists six steps in a typical pilot test:

•  Have a run-through
•  Seek feedback
•  Trial your statistics package
•  Make modifications
•  Back to the start?

Distribution

Bell & Waters (2014) briefly consider distribution methods; they emphasize the need to ensure confidentiality, to include a return date, to formulate a plan for ‘bounce backs’ via email, and to record data as soon as it arrives. O’Leary (2014) lists typical methods: face-to-face, snail mail, e-mail, and online. Bell & Waters (2014) highlight the advantage to administering your questionnaire personally, as it enables the researcher to explain the purpose of the study and increases the probability of receiving completed questionnaires in return. The authors go on to emphasize the value of online methods.  In particular, they mention “Survey Monkey” as the most popular and versatile survey tool available (Bell & Waters, 2014). O’Leary (2014) suggests sending out reminder letters or E-mails in order to increase response rate and the speed of response.

Bell & Waters (2014) and O’Leary (2014) disagree once again with respect to the analysis. O’Leary (2014) suggests collecting the data as soon as possible, whereas Bell (2014) suggests the researcher merely glance through the responses prior to coding and recoding, if time allows. Both methods have merit, as the researcher must consider the time they have available, as well as the amount of data they are working with in order to make a logical decision.

O’Leary (2014) offers some concerns in using questionnaires as a research tool, as they are time consuming, expensive, and sampling is difficult. O’Leary (2014) asserts that questionnaires are ‘notoriously difficult to get right’ and they often do not go as planned.

O’Leary (2014) suggests some obvious strengths for this research method, as administering a questionnaire allows the researcher to generate data specific to their own research and offers insights that might otherwise be unavailable. In listing the additional benefits of questionnaires, O’Leary (2014) suggests that they can:

•      Reach a large number of respondents
•      Represent an even larger population
•      Allow for comparisons
•      Generate standardized, quantifiable, empirical data
•      Generate qualitative data through the use of open-ended questions
•      Be confidential and even anonymous

Considerations for the Method

Cohen et al. (2013, p.394) offer special considerations for administering questionnaires within an educational setting:

• Gaining access to schools and teachers
• Gaining permission to conduct the research
• Resentment by principals
• People vetting what could be used
• Finding enough willing participants for your sample
• Schools suffering from ‘too much research’ by outsiders and insiders
• Schools/people not wishing to divulge information about themselves
• Schools not wishing to be identifiable, even with protections guaranteed
• Local political factors that impinge on the school
• Teachers’ fear of being identified/traceable, even with protections guaranteed
• Fear of participation by teachers (lose their contracts)
• Unwillingness of teachers to be involved because of their workload
• The principal deciding on whether to involve staff, without consultation with the staff
• Schools/institutions fears of criticism/loss of face
• The sensitivity of the research, the issues being investigate

Bell, J., Waters, S., & Ebooks Corporation. (2014). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers (Sixth ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., & Ebooks Corporation. (2011; 2013; 1993). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203720967.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Kvale, S., & SAGE Research Methods Online. (2008). Doing interviews . Thousand Oaks; London: SAGE Publications, Limited.

McNamara, C. (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews, Authenticity Consulting, LLC, Retrieved from: http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm

O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

And So It Was Written

Author: ADJP Quad

Published: March 7, 2016

Word Count: 2375

ORGANIZED BY

More to read.

Comments are closed.

Recently Written

• An Introduction to Document Analysis
• Observation: Not As Simple As You Thought (ADK)
• Grounded Theory: A Down-to-Earth Explanation
• Assignment (10)

View by Date Published

Search writings.

A TRU Writer powered SPLOT : Research Methodology in Education

Blame @cogdog — Up ↑

• Corpus ID: 140483729

Using interviews as research instruments

• A. Kajornboon
• Published 2004

211 Citations

Getting more out of your interview data: toward a framework for debriefing the transcriber of interviews., a call for enhancing saturation at the qualitative data analysis stage via the use of multiple qualitative data analysis approaches, exploration of nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers towards medication error reporting in a tertiary health care facility: a qualitative approach, perceptions of importance and what safety is enough☆, a small scale survey assessing the impact of mentoring perspectives on mentoring schemes within primary and secondary schools., overcoming challenges in qualitative inquiry within a conservative society, virtual leadership in its socio-cultural context - the influence of the project leader’s culture in virtual project teams, situated practice in clil: voices from colombian teachers, exploration of factors that inform curriculum studies students to use e-resources in conducting masters of education dissertations at a south african university..

• Highly Influenced

A Case Study on Loot Boxes in Two Video Games : A comparison between Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2

112 references, social research: the basics, doing research in the real world.

• Highly Influential

Simulation Research Methods

Social research: theory, methods and techniques, the research interview, research methods in education, research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, research methods: a process of inquiry, reworking qualitative data, learners' needs, attitudes and motivation towards the self-access mode of language learning, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Global Burden Disease Estimates for Major Depressive Disorders (MDD): A review of diagnostic instruments used in studies of prevalence

• Original Paper
• Published: 01 July 2024

Cite this article

• Lisa Cosgrove   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3101-5726 1 , 2 ,
• Petra Brhlikova 3 ,
• Rosanna Lyus 3 ,
• Farahdeba Herrawi 2 ,
• Gianna D’Ambrozio 2 ,
• Elia Abi-Jaoude 3 &
• Allyson M. Pollock 4  

Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates have significant policy implications nationally and internationally. Disease burden metrics, particularly for depression, have played a critical role in raising governmental awareness of mental health and in calculating the economic cost of depression. Recently, the World Health Organization ranked depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. The main aim of this paper was to assess the basis upon which GBD prevalence estimates for major depressive disorder (MDD) were made. We identify the instruments used in the 2019 GBD estimates and provide a descriptive assessment of the five most frequently used instruments. The majority of country studies, 356/566 (62.9%), used general mental health screeners or structured/semi-structured interview guides, 98/566 (17.3%) of the studies used dedicated depression screeners, and 112 (19.8%) used other tools for assessing depression. Thus, most of the studies used instruments that were not designed to make a diagnosis of depression or assess depression severity. Our results are congruent with and extend previous research that has identified critical flaws in the data underpinning the GBD estimates for MDD. Despite the widespread promotion of these prevalence estimates, caution is needed before using them to inform public policy and mental health interventions. This is particularly important in lower-income countries where resources are scarce.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Bayetti, C., Bakhshi, P., Davar, B., Khemka, G. C., Kothari, P., Kumar, M., Kwon, W., Mathias, K., Mills, C., Montenegro, C. R., Trani, J. F., & Jain, S. (2023). Critical reflections on the concept and impact of “scaling up” in Global Mental Health. Transcultural Psychiatry, 60 (3), 602–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615231183928

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brhlikova, P., Pollock, A. M., & Manners, R. (2011). Global Burden of Disease estimates of depression–how reliable is the epidemiological evidence? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104 (1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2010.100080

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chapman, A. R. (2010). The social determinants of health, health equity, and human rights. Health and Human Rights, 12 (2), 17–30.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chisholm, D., Sweeny, K., Sheehan, P., Rasmussen, B., Smit, F., Cuijpers, P., & Saxena, S. (2016). Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: A global return on investment analysis. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 3 (5), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30024-4

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Copeland, J. R., Prince, M., Wilson, K. C., Dewey, M. E., Payne, J., & Gurland, B. (2002). The Geriatric Mental State Examination in the 21st century. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17 (8), 729–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.667eferences

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cosgrove, L., D’Ambrozio, G., Herrawi, F., Freeman, M., & Shaughnessy, A. (2023). Why psychiatry needs an honest dose of gentle medicine. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14 , 664. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1167910

Article   Google Scholar  

Global Health Data Exchange. (n.d.).  Global burden of disease study 2019 (GBD 2019) Data Input Sources Tool . Global Health Data Exchange (GHDx). https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2019/data-input-sources?components=5&causes=568&locations=1 . Accessed March 2023

Fried, E. I. (2017). The 52 symptoms of major depression: Lack of content overlap among seven common depression scales. Journal of Affective Disorders, 208 , 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.019

Goldhill, O. (2023). How a depression test devised by a Zoloft marketer became a crutch for a failing mental health system. STAT News . Retrieved May 2024 from https://www.statnews.com/2023/02/21/depression-test-phq9-zoloft-pfizer-mental-health/

Jerant, A., Kravitz, R. L., Fernandez Y Garcia, E., Feldman, M. D., Cipri, C., Nishio, D., Knoepfler, A., Wooddell, M. K., Baquero, V., & Franks, P. (2014). Potential antidepressant overtreatment associated with office use of brief depression symptom measures. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, 27 (5), 611–620. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2014.05.140038

Karlsson, L., Marttunen, M., Karlsson, H., Kaprio, J., & Hillevi, A. (2010). Minor change in the diagnostic threshold leads into major alteration in the prevalence estimate of depression. Journal of Affective Disorders., 122 , 96–101.

Lancet Global Mental Health Group, Chisholm, D., Flisher, A. J., Lund, C., Patel, V., Saxena, S., Thornicroft, G., & Tomlinson, M. (2007). Scale up services for mental disorders: A call for action. Lancet (london, England), 370 (9594), 1241–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61242-2

Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, D. V., Weiller, E., Amorim, P., Bonora, I., Sheehan, K. H., Janavs, J., & Dunbar, G. C. (1997). The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): A short diagnostic structured interview: Reliability and validity according to the CIDI. European Psychiatry, 12 (5), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(97)83296-8

Levis, B., Benedetti, A., Riehm, K. E., Saadat, N., Levis, A. W., Azar, M., et al. (2018). Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 212 (6), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2018.54

Levis, B., Benedetti, A., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Sun, Y., Negeri, Z., He, C., et al. (2020). Patient health questionnaire-9 scores do not accurately estimate depression prevalence: Individual participant data meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 122 , 115.e1–128.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.002

Lyus, R., Buamah, C., Pollock, A. M., Cosgrove, L., & Brhlikova, P. (2023). Global Burden of Disease 2017 estimates for Major Depressive Disorder: A critical appraisal of the epidemiological evidence. JRSM Open, 14 (9), 20542704231197590. https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704231197594

Maske, U. E., Busch, M. A., Jacobi, F., Beesdo-Baum, K., Seiffert, I., Wittchen, H. U., Riedel-Heller, S., & Hapke, U. (2015). Current major depressive syndrome measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): Results from a cross-sectional population-based study of adults in Germany. BMC Psychiatry, 15 , 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0463-4

Mekonen, T., Chan, G. C. K., Connor, J. P., Hides, L., & Leung, J. (2021). Estimating the global treatment rates for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295 , 1234–1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.09.038

Merriott, D. (2016). Factors associated with the farmer suicide crisis in India. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health, 6 (4), 217–227.

Mezzich, J. E., Kirmayer, L. J., Kleinman, A., Fabrega, H., Parron, D. L., Good, B. J., Lin, K. M., & Manson, S. M. (1999). The place of culture in DSM-IV. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 187 (8), 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-199908000-00001

Patel, V., Collins, P. Y., Copeland, J., Kakuma, R., Katontoka, S., Lamichhane, J., et al. (2011). The movement for Global Mental Health. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 198 (2), 88–90. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.109.074518

Patel, V., Saxena, S., Lund, C., Thornicroft, G., Baingana, F., Bolton, P., Chisholm, D., Collins, P. Y., Cooper, J. L., Eaton, J., Herrman, H., Herzallah, M. M., Huang, Y., Jordans, M. J. D., Kleinman, A., Medina-Mora, M. E., Morgan, E., Niaz, U., Omigbodun, O., … UnÜtzer, J. (2018). The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development. Lancet (london, England), 392 (10157), 1553–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31612-X

Pettersson, A., Boström, K. B., Gustavsson, P., & Ekselius, L. (2015). Which instruments to support diagnosis of depression have sufficient accuracy? A systematic review. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 69 (7), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2015.1008568

Pūras, D. (2017). Statement by Mr Dainius Pūras, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health at the 35th session of the Human Rights Council . United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2017/09/statement-mr-dainius-puras-special-rapporteur-right-everyone-enjoyment-highest

Robins, L. N., Wing, J., Wittchen, H. U., Helzer, J. E., Babor, T. F., Burke, J., Farmer, A., Jablenski, A., Pickens, R., & Regier, D. A. (1988). The Composite International Diagnostic Interview. An epidemiologic Instrument suitable for use in conjunction with different diagnostic systems and in different cultures. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45 (12), 1069–1077. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800360017003

Roseman, M., Kloda, L. A., Saadat, N., Riehm, K. E., Ickowicz, A., Baltzer, F., Katz, L. Y., Patten, S. B., Rousseau, C., & Thombs, B. D. (2016). Accuracy of depression screening tools to detect major depression in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 61 (12), 746–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716651833

Summerfield, D. A. (2017). Western depression is not a universal condition. The British Journal of Psychiatry: THe Journal of Mental Science, 211 (1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.211.1.52

Thombs, B. D., Kwakkenbos, L., Levis, A. W., & Benedetti, A. (2018). Addressing overestimation of the prevalence of depression based on self-report screening questionnaires. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De L’association Medicale Canadienne, 190 (2), E44–E49. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170691

Tichenor, M., & Sridhar, D. (2019). Metric partnerships: global burden of disease estimates within the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Wellcome Open Research, 4 , 35. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15011.2

Wang, P. S., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., Alonso, J., Angermeyer, M. C., Borges, G., Bromet, E. J., Bruffaerts, R., de Girolamo, G., de Graaf, R., Gureje, O., Haro, J. M., Karam, E. G., Kessler, R. C., Kovess, V., Lane, M. C., Lee, S., Levinson, D., Ono, Y., Petukhova, M., … Wells, J. E. (2007). Use of mental health services for anxiety, mood, and substance disorders in 17 countries in the WHO world mental health surveys. Lancet (london, England), 370 (9590), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61414-7

Wildeman, S. (2013). Protecting rights and building capacities: Challenges to global mental health policy in light of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics : A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41 (1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12005

Williams, C., & Chapman, A. (2022). VIRTUAL ROUNDTABLE Impact of human rights council reports on mental health. Health and Human Rights Journal, 25 (2). 85–99. Retrieved May 2024 from https://www.hhrjournal.org/2022/12/virtual-roundtable-impact-of-human-rights-council-reports-on-mental-health/

World Health Organization. (WHO). (2017, January). Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders: Global Health Estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/depression-global-health-estimates

Yamin, A. E. (2019). Struggles for human rights in health in an age of neoliberalism: From civil disobedience to epistemic disobedience. Journal of Human Rights Practice , 11, 357–372. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791014

Zeira, A. (2022). Mental health challenges related to neoliberal capitalism in the United States. Community Mental Health Journal, 58 (2), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00840-7

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Mental Health, Human Rights, and Social Justice, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

Lisa Cosgrove

Counseling Psychology Department, Applied Ethics Center, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 William T Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA, 02125, USA

Lisa Cosgrove, Farahdeba Herrawi & Gianna D’Ambrozio

Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Bldg, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK

Petra Brhlikova, Rosanna Lyus & Elia Abi-Jaoude

The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada

Allyson M. Pollock

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Cosgrove .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 91 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) 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

Cosgrove, L., Brhlikova, P., Lyus, R. et al. Global Burden Disease Estimates for Major Depressive Disorders (MDD): A review of diagnostic instruments used in studies of prevalence. Community Ment Health J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01302-6

Download citation

Received : 20 December 2023

Accepted : 21 May 2024

Published : 01 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01302-6

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

• Depression screening
• Global burden of disease
• Global mental health
• Patient Health Questionnaire
• Cultural psychiatry
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

File(s) under embargo

until file(s) become available

Translation and Evaluation of the Denyes Self-Care Agency Instrument (DSCAI-90) with Thai Adolescents

Degree grantor, degree level, degree name, committee member, thesis type, usage metrics.